Stuff Ned said on November 16
Friday, the Dodgers introduced the rest of Joe Torre's coaching staff, including holdovers Rick Honeycutt (pitching) and Mariano Duncan (first base). Not surprisingly, once the questions for the coaches had ended, the media asked GM Ned Colletti a couple questions of a hot stove variety. With all the rumors flying around, whether about free agent center fielders or trade possibilities. Regarding the former, Aaron Rowand seems squarely on the Big Blue Radar, though Colletti also expressed interest in Andrew Jones and Torii Hunter, at least abstractly. On the trade front, Colletti is using language that sounds very similar to that which he employed at the trade deadline- that the asking price in terms of talent is currently too high for his tastes.
Click below the jump for some Q and A from yesterday's media conference call.
Q: Where are you right now in terms of looking for that middle of the order bat that seems to be a major priority?
Ned Colletti: We've contacted a handful of free agent players. Some of them would be in and around that middle of the order player. We're still in the early process of it, trying to weed out who (isn't) and who is sincere in coming here. There's been some trade conversations, and any player that you would consider to have that kind of ability- middle of the order bat, run producer- as predicted the cost of our prospects going back at least in our mind far exceeds the value of the one player. I'm talking about not one prospect, not two prospects, but in some cases three and four prospects.
Like I told you back in July, our prospects aren't necessarily sitting in Double-A or Triple-A. Our prospects are really no longer prospects, they're big league players. Those are the players that get asked about. We're still on a mission to try and find (that bat) and try to secure it, but if that fails we'll try to improve the club even if it's the 25th man or the 11th or 12th pitcher on the staff. We've got a few options and we'll see how they play out. Right now, trade wise it's a lot of bait and switch, trying to get the team interested, and then having them turn the other way. We thought we had a deal the other day with somebody, but they got cold feet at the end. It's that time of year.
Q: Along those lines, does your interest in a center fielder suggest that you're looking towards a more veteran outfield, or is saying that premature?
NC: Not necessarily. Luis Gonzalez was how old last year? 38, 39? I think our outfield has a chance to be younger.
Q: Were there plans for you to go after A-Rod, or is that something you can talk about?
NC: He's a Yankee again, so I don't want to get into it. If there was some sincere interest in playing in our place, we would have been in the mix.
Q: Where does that interest level lie with the free agent center fielders, in terms of Rowand, Jones, and Hunter?
A: They're all good players, we're curious to know what their interest level is in playing here and what it's going to take to get them here. They're all accomplished in their own way, they all bring something to the table.
Q: Do you have a preference at all, in terms of how you'd like to improve the team. Free agency more than trades, or vice versa?
A: You don't usually have the option to just do one or the other. The market dictates what you do, whether it's the free agent market or the trade market. We do have some depth at some areas, and if we were to improve one of the areas through free agency it may open up a trade route for us. Or we can bypass free agency and try to improve ourselves just through a trade. But the way it's shaping up, and this is subject to change everyday, if we can sign a free agent it may cause a domino effect that somebody else becomes expendable on our part to improve us in another area, via trade.
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
KT
From previous thread you mentined Joe Crede. I hope that is not what we do, it would be simply stupid. He has a history of being injured and even when healthy he's like a .250 hitter with 20 homer and 70 RBI averages in the AL!Andy LaRoche could do that for a lot less. Even Nomar might be able to duplicate those numbers. So basically, how would that be an improvement? We already have 2 guys at third (Nomar, LaRoche) which are injury prone and able to produce the same numbers. Top that off with the fact that Crede is going to cost us 4,5,6 million a year as opposed to LaRoche's minimum and Nomar who is already signed. Again, I say Crede would be a stupid signing.
Posted by: dodgerskip | November 17, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Thanks Doderskip...I knew nothing about the guy except that he was hurt last year and won the silverslugger in 2006. I read the possibility on ESPN and was curious about what type of player he is (defensive, offensive....both).
Posted by: K T USN | November 17, 2007 at 04:32 PM
I think Ned plans as off right now is to acquire a centerfielder which most likely Rowand who had a career year but unlikely to duplicate since he will be playing in pitcher heaven dodger stadium rather than Citizen bank ballpark were runs flows like a waterfall. Which in turn will make Kemp expendable for Cabrera as a package. I've been mulling over this b/c a package of kemp, laroche, kershaw, and even D young for cabrera is quite hefty but in return we get a hall of fame (on pace) bat. Going back and forth i would like to see Cabrera be in a dodger uniform b/c he will provide that star power and a franchise player who can produce tons of power and runs we are lacking. Cabrera is only 24!!. But i would not mind seeing the kids play as well if we dont get CAbs bc they are exciting and they bring alot to the table.
Posted by: dodgerick | November 17, 2007 at 05:38 PM
HERE ARE THE DODGERS OUTFIELDERS: KEMP, EITHIER, PIERRE, THAT ONE GUY WITH THE QUICK SWING (I FORGOT HIS NAME) AND PIERRE
NOW.....WHY WOULD THEY PUT PIERRRE BACK IN THE OUTFIELD NEXT SEASON?.....
I THOUGHT GRADY LITTLE LEFT
Posted by: Aryan Sood | November 17, 2007 at 07:50 PM
d-rick
I think I could almost live with that trade--assuming we could sign Miggy to an extension beforehand that would keep him in LA for at least 4 years. I think FLA would be dumb to turn that down--3 major league ready starters with huge power potential and one possible future ace...I'm sure we'd live to regret it (they'd all probably make the hall of fame) but, Cabrera is only 24 and putting up HOF #'s so you have to give up something for him. Bills, Broxton, Loney, and Martin have to be considered untouchable.
On that subject, I've read where FLA is considering moving Dan Uggla to 3rd to replace Miguel if he is moved or if he stayed and was put in the outfield. If they were high on that happening, they may not want LaRoche and instead might want Abreu for second. If that happened, and we kept LaRoche (of course all of this is hysterically hypothetical), we could move Miguel to left, put LaRoche at third, and have Ethier in right and Pierre or a Rowand?? in center. Bandy that set up around for awhile and it ain't to shabby either. I think keeping Abreu for second after Kent leaves next year and trading LaRoche would be in our best interest though.
I really think, however, when all is said and done, that Arte Moreno will not let Cabrera go to LA (the real LA). And FLA knows this and wil try to play the Dodgers off the Angels to up the offer. In the end, I think Moreno will give up the extra player to get the trade made and try to one-up the Blue. That would be fine--then we could just go get Santana.....ha
Posted by: dodgerskip | November 17, 2007 at 08:00 PM
Why is Kemp expendable? Since when did he become a bust???
Some of you guys really live in a Fantasy world!!!!
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | November 17, 2007 at 08:27 PM
That;s really brilliant!!!!! Cabrera's agent will agree to a 4 year extension!!!!
The nonsense I see on this blog!!!!!
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | November 17, 2007 at 09:54 PM
Dodger 1955
I'm not saying he is expendable (and the blog is a fantasy world). I personally would love to watch him continue to develop and blossom into an All-Star in Dodger Blue. However, It seems that his name is the name that keeps coming up in every trade rumor, and IF he's going to go, I may as well try to guess what he's going for and what deal would give us the most in return. IF he goes, IT HAD BETTER BE FOR A CABRERA OR A SANTANA and not for some 3rd rate hack.
If you want to know what I'd personally do if I was GM, I'd stick Young in left, Kemp in center, Ethier in right and leave them there for the next 10 years. I'd trade Pierre (throwing in any money that it would take to move him). I'd have Martin, Loney, Kent (then Abreu in '09), Furcal (then Hu in '09 if he continues to excel at AAA this year). I'd be willing to start the year with a combo of Nomar & LaRoche at 3rd, but if it wasn't working out by June, I'd try to acquire a 3rd baseman such as Beltre if one could be had relatively cheaply. I'd go with Penny, Lowe, Bills, Schmidt in the rotation and resign Wolf to battle with Loaiza for the 5th spot (both waiting to be replaced by Kershaw).
That's just me. I think that with Little gone, we could win with the team I just described and continue to win for years to come. I'd err on the side of patience and only trade away these key young guys if it looked like they were regressing and not performing. But, alas, I'm not GM and probably not on the short list to replace Colletti. All I can do is vent here on the Blog and cross my fingers hoping that we don't do something stupid that we'd regret for years to come--anyone say Pedro Martinez.
So, once again let me say, "I'm not saying Kemp is expendable." I really want to keep him, but I may engage in the fantasy world of the hot stove league just for the sake of trying to guess what might happen--it's just fun.
Posted by: dodgerskip | November 17, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Dodger 1955-You don't have to be a bust to be expendable. You have to trade talent to get talent and Kemp may just be more valuable in a trade. If they do acquire a CF they'll need to trade Kemp or Ethier and Kemp has a higher market value.
I was all for signing Rowand until I read he was asking for $15 million. THat seems awfully expensive but it's not my money. He would be a great addition to the clubhouse.
Posted by: uclart47 | November 17, 2007 at 10:18 PM
I honestly think Kemp has become somewhat expendable because he ruffled some feathers last year and still has some serious growing up to do. True, you'll get those same growing pains with 24-year-old Cabrera, but we already know what Miggy is capable of when given 600 ABs. Kemp may put up great numbers at the start, but it's all about how well he adjust that next year around when pitchers adjust to him.
I would love to keep Kemp over Ethier, but to get talent, you have to give up talent.
Posted by: Scott True Blue | November 17, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Aryan,
The "guy" with the quick swing is Delwynn Young who just tore up the AFL with a .524 batting average, You left Repko off the list, mentioned Pierre twice and you are screamimg again.
Posted by: K T USN | November 17, 2007 at 11:57 PM
I don't think any of our "propects" who are already playing in the major leagues and those about to play there next year (young) are expendable or a bust. What florida is asking is too high and shouldn't be done period.
Posted by: K T USN | November 18, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Kemp looks ridiculous on anything other than straight fastballs. Just like the tomato who should go as well. Also, Matt is shaky in the field and a poor baserunner. Yes he has power, but it's all below the neck. I also heard he's and on coachable know it all. We should do all we can for him while he still overrated.
I'm glad Mattingly has come and as batting coach. Andre definitely needs to get outside pitch plate coverage. He has opened his stance, but that has changed the arc of his swing and made him vulnerable to fastballs on the outside corner. Pierre really annoys me. He has never learned how to bunt -- except hard back to the pitcher or a feet in front of the plate for an easy out by the catcher. Hopefully, Mattingly can get him from shifting all is weight to his back foot just before he swings and makes such pathetic contact.. he should also walk 50 or 60 times a year instead of swinging at all those bad pitches on three in one counts. Any other manager would have benched him, as punishment for all those bad swings, but he got rewarded and played every single day.
Posted by: jim | November 18, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I don't think Kemp is or should be expendable, but it looks like Aryan found and extra Pierre... can we trade him?
Posted by: benzojones | November 18, 2007 at 05:36 AM
Dodger 1955,
Amen!!!!!!!!
And I don't even want to speculate what some people would include in the "package". We've watched Kemp, Loney, Billingsley, etc. slowly develop over the past two years, and now that they appear ready to break-out, some people want to replace them with a single player who probably isn't much better than any of them (if he's better at all). Sorry, I'll take my chances with what we have.
The alternatives to Cabrera aren't too bad either. LaRoche looked to me that he could turn out to be a lot more than adequate. And maybe someone like Adrian Beltre (still solid stats, and exceptional defense) could be had a lot cheaper. In fact, maybe if the Dodgers are patient, even Cabrera could be had for a lot less than we imagine.
Finally, to set the record straight. Cabrera is currently 24, but will turn 25 at the beginning of the season. It's only a meaningless year, but it is what it is.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | November 18, 2007 at 08:08 AM
Jim,
2 questions.
If Pierre 'has never learned to bunt' how did he lead the league in bunt and infield hits. (maybe not this year)
If Kemp can only hit staright fastballs, how did he end up batting .342 (highest on team) ? and don't say he did not bat much-he had 1/2 year of abs.
David
Posted by: David | November 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
dodger 1955
I somewhat agree with your post, but the one fault i find is you penciling in schmidt in the 4th spot....has he been declared healthy?
if he is hurt again, (likely) that puts wolf or loaiza in the 4th spot with the other in the 5th
that will not be good enough to win the west
we need one (or 2) more quality arms
schmidt should come out of the bullpen and we should make the move for santana....whatever it takes
the dodger way is PITCHING, defense, and speed
Posted by: dave m | November 18, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I've seen the "Matt Kemp can't hit a breaking ball" argument more than once. The only conclusion I can come to is that some of you are fixated on 2006, or else not very observant.
Keep in mind that prior to 2006 Kemp had never played above A-Ball. After 2006 he went to the Dominican Republic, and following a very slow start, finished up strongly; clearly an indication that he was beginning to make adjustments. The Matt Kemp I saw in 2007 still occasionally went fishing for breaking balls (name me a hitter that doesn't), but by and large his pitch recognition vastly improved. Hence, his .342 average.
Like most young players (even some older ones), Kemp is still a work in progress. But he is clearly making plenty of "progress". And keep in mind that he has been honing his skills at the MLB level instead of in the minor leagues, where none of us would have been witness to his struggles. Kemp is somewhat immature, but no more than most very young players. However, to say that he is uncoachable is ludicrous. Clearly he took to whatever coaching he had to improve enough to hit .342. And what about the quality of the coaching? I recall a game last year (and this happened more than once) where Kemp had trouble with a fly ball because he was making a fashion statement, and his sunglasses were on the top of his cap. He then played the next inning with the sunglasses still sitting atop his cap. Was that Kemp's fault, or was it the fault of the manager and coaching staff? Apparently none of them addressed the issue him. That's not a poor attitude, it's poor coaching, plain and simple.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | November 18, 2007 at 06:43 PM
David,
Your points are well taken. However, I will make a few observations. On bunting, his mechanics are awful and he insists on bunting to a third baseman playing half way he line. Easy out. The infielders are obviously playing in now and he does a horrible job determining where he should bunt.
As for Kemp's ability to hit a breaking ball, I think it is obvious he can't. His hits have not on breaking balls but when the pitcher has fallen behind. That's the book on him and the tomato.
Posted by: jim | November 18, 2007 at 06:47 PM
Jim,
I have to argue with you about Kemp. You can't possibly hit .342 in the majors and not be able to handle the curve. You might have a valid argument w/ Tomato (.192?) pitchers figured him out. To say that a .192 hitter w/ a book, has the same book as a .342 hitter doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by: Rob | November 18, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Rob-
I was having that very discussion with someone today. He may not hit offspeed or sliders surgically, like a Tony Gwynn, but if pitchers make mistakes with curveballs and sliders, he's shown the ability to make them pay. Plus, he's tough to beat with a fastball, and will go the other way (with power). He's got some holes in his swing, and likely will for a while, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability to be a very dangerous hitter.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I do not believe and I fervently hope that Miguel Cabrera will not show up to Vero Beach in an L.A. Dodger uniform. Colletti traded away guys like Milton Bradley and Joel Guzman who didn't ingratiate themselves to their teammates or the front office. From reporters' accounts, Cabrera, despite his supremely talented hitting ability, lacks work ethic. Hardly the kind of guy Colletti would want around younger players and veterans of the game like Kent (assuming he comes back for one more), Torre and Mattingly; they would be shaking their heads all season. I don't see Colletti brining in anyone like Cabrera unless somebody higher up pulls the trigger.
Also, Cabrera's glove work doesn't dazzle anyone and the Dodgers need defense like dave m said. Colletti's going after a free-agent CF and they all play good defense. My only concern is that Dodger stadium doesn't have trampolines as walls like they have in Minnesota.
Colletti has got to know that he can't depend on a healthy Schmidt. Santana is the prize, not Cabrera. Besides, it looks like the Angels just cleared room in their infield for a 'major move.'
Brooklyn Dodger - couldn't agree more about the sunglasses on top of the cap. Kids these days...
Posted by: bigyoonit | November 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM
A friend of mine who knows the Twins GM tells me that a Santana for Pierre deal is almost doen... The sticking point is Colletti throwing in Stults.
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | November 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
"If they insist on hoarding every top young prospect, they won't make any significant trades and, aside from free-agent signings, they'll go to Spring Training with roughly the same roster that finished fourth." -- Gurnick from LA Dodgers website. Well, that about sums it up -- the same roster that finished fourth. Santana would suffer the same fate as Derek Lowe, i.e., throw great games only to lose by a run or two. This team needs a legitimate power bat, and has for some time now.
Posted by: LossLeader | November 19, 2007 at 01:06 PM
LossLeader-
To me, it's not a question of hoarding, but of relative value. Personally, I don't have a problem with them moving pitching, but only if they get pitching in return. A package to Minnesota that includes Bills for Santana? That I would do, or at least consider depending on the other pieces. One for Cabrera that includes Bills? That would be a lot tougher to swallow because it would create more holes while filling one. Before you lump Kemp, Bills, and more into a trade, you have to be able to say, "Okay, who can fill that spot better or as good as the player just traded away?" In the case of those two, the available answers are fewer than you might think.
It's not that they can't make trades, but they also can't get too extreme, because otherwise they'll rob Peter to pay Paul. Plug a hole here, create two someplace else. Water still leaks out.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 19, 2007 at 01:13 PM