Whether you're talking "Bob Barker" or "Drew Carey" era
The price doesn't appear to be what Ned Colletti would consider "right." Baseball's Winter Meetings are underway as we speak and two of the players commonly mentioned when it comes to potential Dodger free agent signings include Andruw Jones and Aaron Rowand. The interest in either player is certainly there, but if big figures projected when it comes to years and dollars prove accurate (there's speculation that Jones is pursuing something along the lines of Torii Hunter's 5 year/90 mil bonanza), odds of ink hitting paper remain lower than a limbo champion's final bar. Of course, if the powers that be decide to snag one of these cats in an effort to stockpile the depth needed to land a Johan Santana (especially with The Hated Ones apparently ending their conquest), that could be another story. Otherwise, when it comes to things to watch for from Colletti as the Dodgers head into the future, Jones or Rowand might not be in the cards.
And personally, I don't think that's a bad thing.
I understand the yearning many Dodger fans feel for Colletti and Frank McCourt to "make a move," especially in light of the action going down in the O.C. Or even action yet to take place, given how most consider Anaheim lapping L.A. for the Miguel Cabrera trade inside track. But just because the Halos made a move with very little time to pay off before becoming bad doesn't mean the Dodgers should follow suit just to remain neck in neck in the "name" race. And should the Halos end up winners of the Miggy Sweepstakes, I don't know if the Blue Nation can legitimately hold that against their front office. The pieces reportedly on Anaheim's table are prospects in a traditional sense. A lot of the Dodger "prospects" also happen to be their everyday players on the big club. If the Dodgers trade away Matt Kemp, James Loney, Chad Billingsley and the seriously talented Clayton Kershaw for Cabrera, are they really any better? One gaping hole gets filled while shovels are grabbed to dig new ones. You don't get anywhere robbing Peter to pay Paul.
You also don't get better just signing "names." And if the Dodgers acquiesce to unreasonably inflated salaries/years for either Jones or Rowand (unless with the firm intention of flipping others in a trade), I fear the Dodger outfield won't really end up any better, just more expensive and featuring players with a higher Q-Rating outside of L.A. Andruw Jones is coming off a dismal season and will be 31 next season. Sure, 2007 could represent a mere hiccup in an otherwise stellar career. But it could also signal the beginning of a downslide. Do you really want to spend upwards of nine figures to learn the truth? Or spend 5-6 years sitting on the truth you've learned? And while I like Rowand, until last season (when he spent time in the clean up spot), he'd never driven in more 70 runs. Before that, his numbers (power or otherwise) strike me as similar to Andre Ethier's or or maybe even less impressive than Matt Kemp's, both of whom (especially Ethier) often batted towards the bottom of the lineup. Given the quick rate that both young Dodgers have improved each year, does Rowand really stand out as much of an upgrade? Maybe he could be next season. But beyond that? Unless Ethier or Kemp have peaked before turning 25, I'd rather have those two than Rowand. And I'll say it again. If Kemp doesn't have Colletti or Joe Torre's confidence when it comes to full time work in center (putting Juan Pierre's noodle arm in left), I really could see Ethier holding down the fort, if just for a season.
At any rate, like I said, if they overpay for Jones or Rowand as a means of putting another move into motion, fine and dandy. But otherwise, avoid the urge to make a "big splash" for the sake of "looking unafraid." Anybody can make a splash. It doesn't take much skill to drop a big cannonball to into a pool. I'd much rather see a Triple Lindy, even if it means waiting a little longer and exercising some patience.
-AK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
Just so I have this straight, Jones is "coming off a dismal season" -- true -- and yet he would have been, by far, the best power hitter on the Dodgers (26HRs 94RBIs). So the reason that Ethier, Kemp, Loney and Martin failed to hit 20+ (much less 30+)(certainly not 40-50+) homers is all Grady Little's fault, right?? Or are we just drinking a little too much blue colored Kool Aid when talking about our great (probably just good) young players. Or, are they all going to hit 20+ homers each next season? The Dodgers should try harder for Jones, because at his worst he's better than anything we've got.
Posted by: LossLeader | December 04, 2007 at 11:25 AM
For those who want to trade Pierre, keep in mind that (I believe) this is Furcal's last year and he is often injured. Who is going to lead off for the Dodgers if he is gone? Despite his faults he can be a fairly effective lead off hitter.
But there is the dilemma. If we get a center fielder and Pierre goes to left, what happens to Either? He should not be on the bench.
AK/BK
Speaking of improving the bullpen, what is the status of Yhency Brazoban? Will he be back next season?
Posted by: Andy B | December 04, 2007 at 11:27 AM
AK,
I agree with you. I'd much prefer going with the players the Dodgers have, adding some spare parts (but, please, no more of the likes of Roberto Hernandez) and allowing the young players to develop.
Bringing in a big name "savior" or a "last piece of the puzzle" has not worked out well for the Dodgers. If Jason Schmidt rebounds (which I doubt), then so much the better.
I'd rather watch a developing, improving team than one that falsely fancies itself as a contender. Last season's collapse was embarrassing.
Posted by: Chunkdog32 | December 04, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Colletti has the right idea of sticking with the kids. the frustrating thing is that he got here a year later than the rest of us. I'd still rather see Ethier & Kemp starting in the outfield than go over pay Rowand & Jones. Of course we'd all love to upgrade our defense in center & put a bit more punch in the line up but from the costs stated I agree with Ned it's not worth it.
It may be worth it to extend a bit more of our $ to lock up Kuroda and then go about solidifying our bullpen & our bench. Resign Sweeney as our PH, & Saenz for the pen. And see what other smaller moves can do for you to make us deeper.
It won't look like a drastically different team but it doesn't necessarily need to. A little more depth, slightly stronger pitching staff, new coaching/manager, & the bats of Kemp, Loney, Either, perhaps LaRoache for a full year might be a world of difference.
Posted by: Jukuren | December 04, 2007 at 11:58 AM
In ready today's LA Times, according to Colleti, free agency has gotten quite expensive......Jones, Rowand, both seeking 5 yr contracts in the vicinity of 90+mil ???? I must have to agree that it has gotten insane and that as long as salaries keep getting ridiculously high (Thanks to the fricken Red Sox and Yankees), it will be almost impossible to make a signing for any of those players, specially when our team owner seems to have a tight walllet. There can be valid arguments to bring a "power hitting" center fielder, but with this kind of market, maybe our best bet is to bank on the youth. Damnn, these contracts make Pierre's contract to be a bargain.....Wouldn't it be cheaper to give Pierre a left hand replacemen instead of replacing him t???? Move Kemp to Center, stick Pierre and Either to the outsides and perhaps bring in a veteran outfield to give Mr."can't throw" Pierre a breather......there, problem solved. Getting a fricken headache over this !!!!!
Posted by: JC Blue | December 04, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Just saw on ESPN.com blog, Dodgers are close to deal with Baltimore for Bedard. Jon Broxton and Matt Kemp for Erik Bedard. Not sure if I like this or not. Especially without Saito's name on a contract yet. I dont mind losing Kemp that much, if and only if they plan on making a move towards Jones or Rowand quickly.
Posted by: Blue Fan | December 04, 2007 at 12:23 PM
The Dodgers may not have Yankee or Red Sox money but they have at least Angel money and very likely much, much more. If the Angels can pay Hunter 90 million, they Dodgers can afford Jones, who will probably have to take less than Hunter because of his poor 2007 season. I agree with LossLeader: Jones would be the best and most proven power hitter on the Dodgers. Just like Rowand's last season was an aberration, so was Jones's. Druw has an all-star history and he is younger than Hunter.
So what if the Dodgers overpay for Jones? That is the market these days and overpaying for one or two players (Kuroda hopefully being the other) will not bankrupt the future. Trading young talent for M. Cabrera will do that. The Dodgers have unloaded at least 15 million dollars with Wolf and Gonzo gone and Jones will produce more than either of those two did last year. It's time the Dodgers increased their payroll instead of trying to keep it around 100 million. Their price on parking at the Stadium alone would justify this.
Colletti has banked on veterans the last two years and all of a sudden he pushing for more inexpensive youth to play? It doesn't sound like he's in charge anymore. My bet is on the guy with the checkbook.
Posted by: bigyoonit | December 04, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I agree, I just don't know that Andruw Jones or Aaron Rowand is that much better than Ethier. If you adjust Ethier's power numbers to the number of at bats that Jones had last year, he has 17 homeruns and 82 RBI. Yes this is a projection, but I think he is capable of that if he is in the lineup everyday. Also, Ethier was batting in the 8th slot for much of the year. Jones may have had an off season, but I think Ethier will get better. And what about comparing BAs? Defensively, Jones is the best of the bunch, but he isn't what he once was, and Ethier is solid. Jones may be the best player, but I don't think he is worth the price.
Posted by: Garysc | December 04, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Garysc,
I agree with you about Ethier, and he's one of my favorite players who gets nowhere near the credit he should -- that said, I'm expecting Kemp to be traded for pitching, so we'll need another decent bat in the outfield. Ethier should get consistent playing time next season, but he and Pierre aren't enough.
P.S. Does anyone else sense a vibe that Kemp "has" to be traded because of clubhouse problems with Kent? Why not hold tight to Kemp and push Ethier in trade talks?
Posted by: LossLeader | December 04, 2007 at 01:06 PM
AK
Heres the part I'm not getting. Everybody is talking about paying too much for the likes of Jones and Rowand. When the Yankees or the Red Sox decide they want a certain player, they go get him. The Dodgers with this management do not seem like they will pay what it takes. Yes, they have made some earlier moves but you just can't quit trying. You have to get deeper and that costs money. And the players you go for have got to be ones that have the potential to truly excel. Not mediocre players.
In regards to expensive players. Everyone wants to condemn a player who would like to make what he can but when a hedgefund manager makes in excess of 250 mil a year stealing Employee money you can't find it on any blog. Give the players a break, man, they just play ball for everyones enjoyment. If McCourt can't pay then he should find another line of work. 4 million fans a year is definitely a lot of fans and money.
Posted by: Package | December 04, 2007 at 01:37 PM
I can't believe that Kemp/Broxton for Bedard is the idea of anyone beside an overzealous O's fan.
The outfield is not the issue for the Dodgers. I think they need to see just what Kemp and Ethier can do over the course of a full season with no more platooning. Put Pierre in left, Kemp in center and Ethier in right and play ball.
As for third base, either LaRoche is a big league third baseman or he's not. Management needs to decide. If they can get someone better than LaRoche is projected to do, then do it. Otherwise, platoon LaRoche and Nomar.
Posted by: elf | December 04, 2007 at 03:20 PM
LossLeader,
I have wondered myself about why Kemp is constantly the subject of trade talks. Maybe his attitude has made him expendable? Because why else would a team struggling to drive in runs part with a power hitter that has shown signs of being an elite talent?
Posted by: Garysc | December 04, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Wouldn't a trrade on Kemp and Kent to the same team be fun?
Play the Kids - it'll be fun, and we can save money on uniforms.
Posted by: benzo jones | December 04, 2007 at 03:34 PM
Comparing the power of Kemp and Loney to Andruw Jones is patently absurd. Kemp is only in his 2nd year with the Dodgers (with the first not being a full year). Yes, he only hit 10 HR's, but then again I believe he only had about 240 AB's. And let's not forget that he started the season at age 22. He's at the age where maturity is beginning to kick in, and power increases. And surely, even at his tender age it's quite obvious that he has big time power. Regular playing time (like not being benched following a 4 hit game) will do wonders.
As for Loney, didn't anyone observe that he hit 9 of his 15 HR's in September. Could it be that the power we've been waiting for finally emerged? Oh, and let's not forget that Kemp and Loney hit .342 and .331, respectively. Not too shabby, I think.
Tony Jackson mentioned the Broxton/Kemp for Bedard rumor on his blog. If the Dodgers make that deal it will be a disaster. Who replaces Broxton? And those of you so anxious to rid the Dodgers of Kemp will be crying by mid-season, and asking for Coletti's head.
Personally, I'm in the camp of those who think pitching is all the Dodgers need (and some of that can be obtained via free agency, or perhaps one of the Dodgers kids will step up in spring training). Just the subtraction of Gonzo improves the offense. Ethier, Kemp, Loney, and Martin will together produce considerably more power than last year. We've watched these young players develop over the last two seasons. Now that they have reached the point where they are on the verge of breaking out, some of are ready to let them go. Young players are generally not at their best in the first year or two. Here's hoping the Dodgers have the patience and fortitude to stick with them through the entire development cycle.
And for those of you who complain about how much money the Yankees and Red Sox spend, well here's the reason. They, along with the Mets, make loads more money than the Dodgers. And it has nothing to do with attendance. All three of those teams own regional networks (YES, NESN and SNY) that generate millions of dollars. Even if they lose money on their baseball operations, their net take far exceeds the Dodgers. When McCourt bought the Dodgers in 2004 he purchased the team at a considerable discount. He received the discount by agreeing to remain tied to Fox through 2013 (according to a recent answer to a fan's question by Ken Gurnick).
I'm sure the Dodgers generate plenty of revenue. But they're not in the same league with the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Perhaps when they are out from under their obligation to Fox the Dodgers will also establish a regional network. But that's several years off.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | December 04, 2007 at 03:52 PM
so I have been hearing that we are close to inking a deal to send Kemp and Brox to Baltimore for bedard.
Can anyone post where they have seen this report? I've been searching the web for news of it, but I can't find anything that says they are "close" per se.
In any case, I like this deal. No, I am not too excited to give up Kemp. He has all the potential in the world and if we deal him, we could live to regret it. Emphasis on could. Brox, on the oter hand, I'm okay with letting go. If the past ten years have shown us anything, very, very, very few relievers, especially closers, have long life spans. Mo Rivera and Trevor Hoffman are the only two I can think of in the closer role that have maintained some sort of dominance over the long term. So to give up a guy who could blow out the way Gagne did in a couple of seasons to get a 28 year old on the verge of becoming a legit ace (Bedard) seems fair to me.
That rotation could be epic.
Penny
Bedard
Lowe
Billz
Schmidt/Loiza/Kuroda maybe
However, if we do deal Kemp, then we almost have to sign Jones. Hopefully Boras will get his head out of his a-- and realize that Jones probably won't get 5-6 for about $100 mil. If we can make the deal for bedard and sign jones for 2-3/30-45mil, then we're in business.
Posted by: nick | December 04, 2007 at 04:02 PM
The Yankees and Red Sox have their own TV network which generates money. Dodgers don't. And I don't believe from what I read that McCourt has the pockets to cover large payroll. I believe he had to borrow money to buy the club. Whatever his fiscal situation is, it's his money and he will do what he wants. We can agree or not but we have no choice as fans.
Neither Loney or Kemp played a full season, and Eithier did not play every day so it's pointless to compare their power stats to Jones or anyone else.
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | December 04, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Frank McCourt talks about he's willing to do anything to bring a championship back to L.A. Really??????? It sure don't seem like it. If you don't want to trade the young players, that's fine I agree keep them, but the lack of movement from the front office is frustrating to watch. The Dodgers are going to have to overspend for any free agent just like they did for Pierre, Schmidt, Garciaparra, Gonzales, and just like the Angels did for Hunter. I wish the Dodgers were owned by Arte Moreno instead of an owner that's willing to raise the prices of parking, tickets, food and yet is not willing to sign any players.
Posted by: dcerros | December 04, 2007 at 04:26 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem that Ned Colletti thinks doing things on the cheap is the best strategy to make a fourth place team any better?
Posted by: Enrique | December 04, 2007 at 04:38 PM
LossLeader,
You stated in the previous thread that Matt Kemp "...remains unbalanced on offspeed and breaking pitches...."
Were we watching the same player? The Matt Kemp you are describing played for the Dodgers in 2006, following a 2005 season spent in A-ball. The Matt Kemp I saw in 2007 was far more balanced at the plate, and evidenced far better pitch recognition. Did Matt Kemp ever look silly fishing for a breaking ball in 2007? You bet he did. But name me a hitter (even Miguel Cabrera) who doesn't on occasion go fishing. Even the best hitters get fooled every now and again. But somehow, the "unbalanced" Kemp managed to hit .342.
Combining 2006-07, Matt Kemp has played the equivalent of about two-thirds of a season. I believe Mike Schmidt hit about .195 his rookie year (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Young players don't develop overnight. With a lot of teams Matt Kemp would have played in AA in 2006 and AAA in 2007. Instead he hit .253 (2006) and .342 (2007) with 17 HR's combined in about 400 AB's. Give him 600 AB's and that projects to 25-26 HR's. And that's before any improvement. He's also at the age where physical maturity will kick in, not to mention experience.
And I don't think Cabrera is "...twice as good a hitter as anyone on the Dodgers roster...." I also like Loney's chances to break out with a big power year in 2008. Last year he hit .331 with 15 HR's. As I noted in a previous post, 9 of those HR's came in September. I think Loney's late season power surge is a harbinger of things to come.
Signing FA's is a gamble, and so is waiting for young players to develop. I prefer to gamble on the latter, simply because I think in this case it's a good bet. That said, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the Dodgers sign a free agent pitcher or two. And if the Dodgers signed Andruw Jones or Aaron Rowand w/o moving Matt Kemp, I'd be all for it. And as I've mentioned before, I am one of those who believe that Juan Pierre could be moved, especially if the Dodgers were willing to pick up a piece of his remaining four years.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | December 04, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Well the boys in blue have snoozed and lost again. As a loyal fan of this team living in Colorado for 35 years, I am so frustrated and annoyed with the medicore talent that they continue to put together and throw out there. They have NO power in that lineup... there pitching with the exception of bills and penny is very average... I was only hoping Lowe would pack up for the Bronx or back to Boston.. .. I agree there is good young talent on this team and wouldnt want to see them trade away Loney or Martin or a few of the young arms... but when there is a player that would really help this ball club out there and they DO NOTHING to pursue it... it makes no sense to me. They could even have put together a few of those young players and make the same deal with Florida that Detroit did and bring in Dontrelle Willis along with Cabrrera, then you arent filling one hole and causing another... and what about the free agents out there? Andruw Jones is an outstanding ballplayer and sure his numbers were down last year.... but I would be willing to bet that a change of scenery would revive his career... and he is a MUCH better power hitter than anything they have on the roster right now. And didnt the Dodgers try this hang on to all the young talent back in the mid 90's? Karros-Piazza-Mondesi-Hollandsworth-Nomo all that young talent sure brought alot of the glory back to the Dodgers then... and it wont work again this time either. The bottom line is the owners want to put a team out there as CHEAP as they can... I live in Denver and have seen the Rockies do this for years, sure they had a good stretch and playoff run last season... but it was a fluke, as will be shown this next season. The McCourts could care less about the history and the tradition of THE best franchise in baseball.. all they care about is that they lead the national leauge in attendance, to them that is a winning season....
Posted by: Kevin | December 04, 2007 at 05:00 PM
I want to see Delwyn Young playing for the big club next year. forget about Kent and his 9 million if he decides to retire. Insert D.Y. in at 2nd because he was originally an infielder and he is starting to show some pop. I think the kid could hit close to 20 hr's a year. Go out and deal Kemp or Eithier w/ Brox for Bedard and then sign A. Jones. Hopefully for 3 yrs, forget that 4-5 nonsense because the guys is 31ish. I think his glove and bat are worth a big price tag. Then either platoon Laroche/Nomar at third or figure a way to bring Beltre back.
Posted by: j_dub | December 04, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Obviously, the Yankees and Red Sox payroll is ridiculous and the Dodgers do not need to spend exorbitant sums of money for something that's not guaranteed, i.e. championship (see Yankees, 2007). McCourt may have borrowed money to buy the team (what one individual has $430 million in cash these days), however, if he has the liquid resources to improve the team with a FA player or two at needed positions then he should do it. The Dodgers are a large market team and have the means to (do not read: MUST) acquire a good player in a terribly over-priced FA market. Besides, when is the FA market ever going to be reasonable in cost?
The Detroit Tigers and Anaheim Angels do not have their own network yet they are willing to spend the money to improve their team.
Jones has seven seasons of hitting 30 or more HRs. He is a proven asset.
Eithier will not have the opportunity to hit anywhere but second, seventh or eighth in the lineup so his power numbers will not reach any perceived potential with the Dodgers this season unless Loney or Kemp are traded.
Posted by: bigyoonit | December 04, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Bedard: No. 2 in WHIP, behind JS; ground ball pitcher; LOWEST SLG in the AL.
This team could end up being very young. The old farts in the NL West were left in the dust at season's end.
Posted by: David A | December 04, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Brooklyn Dodger
I have looked and looked for the numbers that you say the Yankees and Red Sox have to work with and cannot find them.(TVRevenue). Could you please post these numbers along with the Angels and Tigers and any others you may have, against what the Dodgers get? This will let us all know how the Dodgers compare with the rest of the Major Leagues. Perhaps you also have the numbers on how much money Fox pays the Dodgers for broadcasting rights? Of course don't forget the gate receipts for each team.
Posted by: Package | December 04, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Package,
I don't know if it's a question of the Dodgers not being willing to spend (anyone who gave Brett Tomko 8-9 million bucks can't exactly be accused of chintziness. haha), but not being willing to overpay for certain players, depending on the situation and circumstances. I honestly don't think money would have gotten in the way of pursuing A-Rod. I don't think what Miggy (were he still on the block) or Santana will eventually cost was a deterant. But with all respect to Rowand or Jones (at least coming off this season), they're not A-Rod, Cabrera or Santana. And with Jones, I think you absolutely have to consider his age when debating a long term deal. He'll be 31 when the season starts. Even while not being afraid of emptying the purse, you don't want to set yourself up for a contract you'll potentially regret reasonably fast.
Sometimes, I think it comes down to a question of players you'd like vs. players you need. And unless it's to help create depth to facilitate a trade for a Santana or maybe Bedard (as the rumors go), I honestly don't think Jones or Rowand represent a sizable upgrade or fix a real need, at least not on their own. Just my opinion.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | December 04, 2007 at 06:03 PM