Great chat!
Fun chat on ESPN.com from Tim Kurkijan, talking about the local baseball squads, and which has the brighter future. Kurkijan seems to give the edge to the Halos, but has kind words for both franchises. I was hoping when I saw it to set up a little point/counterpoint, but it turns out he's pretty much on point with most Blue issues.
Some excerpts below:
Paul (Whittier CA): What do you make of the surplus of outfielders with the Dodgers? Do you feel that one will get traded before the start of the season?
...Tim Kurkjian: I can see the Dodgers making a deal for Andre Ethier, because they do have one too many outfielders. A former Dodger told me that now is the time to trade Matt Kemp, because he's so coveted, you might get a good deal for him. Personally, I might hang on to Matt Kemp and see if he develops into a player that many think he will become.
Peter (Silver City, MS): Much has been made of the lack of power in the Dodgers line-up in recent years. But I remember the Cardinals doing quite well with little power in the '80s. How do you think the Dodgers will do with only one legit power hitter?...
...Tim
Kurkjian: The Dodgers have finished higher than 8th in runs scored in
the NL only one time in the last ten years. They have had a power shortage for
some time, and they still have one right now. Andruw Jones will be a huge
addition to them if he returns to the Andruw Jones form of two or three years
ago. It's one thing to have a bunch of good hitters in your lineup, but in
today's baseball, you have to have a truly productive, really dangerous power
guy in the middle of the order if you're gonna win consistently...
...Ryan (Walnut Creek, CA): Tim, do you see the Dodgers playing
3rd base by platoon with La Roche and Nomar? Or will someone win the job out
right?
...Tim Kurkjian: I don't think they'll platoon at third. I think they'll give LaRoche a chance to win the everyday job in ST, but one Dodger told me he wasn't as good defensively as the Dodgers had hoped. Nomar, on the other hand, has had a tremenous amount of trouble staying healthy, and according to one scout, his bat slowed last year. Third base is a question mark for the Dodgers. It could be a productive position, or it could be a hole...
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
The Dodgers are still so young, there is really no way to tell how productive the line-up is going to be. The roster is filled with "ifs;" if Kemp blossoms, if LaRoche wins the job and also blossoms, if Furcal is healthy, if Jones reverts back to the Jones of old, of Kent doesn't start playing like a guy in his 40s, if Loney continues to showcase power, if Ethier gets enough playing time and continues to grow, if Martin can conrinue to be the premier catcher in baseball ... . It's gona make for a fun season, but IF all those questions are answered in teh affirmative, we will have enough production to win-out. How does the pirching hold-up ... that question presents a whole no list of "ifs."
Posted by: Paul Simonds | January 30, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Who ever was that former Dodger who urged trading Kemp now I would like to tell him that maybe there is a reason why Kemp is so coveted and what would you say if Kemp develops into a 5 tool all star on another team? Why trade Ethier since he is far superior to the hapless Juan Pierre? Try to eat some of Pierre's contract and trade him or trade him to another team for some bad contract on that team (an exchange of bad contracts). Anyone notice that Pierre hit zero home runs last year? I am sick of reading unfounded rumors of the Dodgers getting rid of Kemp or Ethier.
Posted by: Ripper | January 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM
The reason to trade Ethier, much as I love him, rather than Pierre, is that you get more in return. Ethier is young and talented and has power; Pierre has none of those things, and is expensive to boot. That said, Ethier will probably never become an all-star, and is therefore a replaceable part. Corner outfielders are a dime a dozen.
I wouldn't trade him just to free up playing time for Pierre, but if Ethier is the price for a frontline pitcher, a proven commodity at 3B, or some other hard-to-find part, then I'd be sad to see him go.
However, I get the impression the Dodgers aren't going to do anything until spring training at the earliest, and midseason most likely. It is indeed a wait and see season, and the July trading deadline will be soon enough to find out exactly what they need. Now that Santana is off the table (if he passes physical), I don't see another great pitcher available outside of Oakland, but maybe Beane can be persuaded into sumping Harden or Blanton.
Speaking of Santana, how dumb are the Twins? They had a chance to get much better talent from both the Red Sox and the Yankees, yet they settled for nothing but unproven minor leaguers. How good does the Dodgers supposed offer look to them now: Kemp and Kershaw and a player to be named later? If the Mets deal falls through, I hope Ned is on the phone immediately with an offer. Santana turns any team into a playoff contender by himself; he'd make the Dodgers odds-on favorites to win the pennant.
Posted by: SaMo | January 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM
SaMo - not sure if you can call the Twins "dumb" or not, but there are several different supposed offers/ non-offers for Santana that I've heard were offered/ not offered. The latest from Yanks I heard was that they originally offered Melky Cabrera, Phil Hughes, and Jeff Marquez. The Twins came back and wanted Ian Kennedy as part of the package. Yanks refused and pulled their original offer. RSox , contrary to published reports, deny ever offering a package with both Jon Lester and Jacoby Ellsbury.
Sure, looking back - the Twins shoulda taken the original offer from the Yanks. But then everyone would say - "What the heck were they thinking, they shoulda waited it out for a better offer..."
Problem is, the offers weren't getting better - they were getting worse.
Twins were in a tough spot 'cause Santana was gonna walk after this season as a FA....... they had to get something more than rumors (Kemp and Kershaw), so they pulled the trigger.
At first glance, the Twins seem to have settled for a bunch of minor league slop, but scout.com apparently likes what the Twins got.......
Posted by: ALS | January 30, 2008 at 01:31 PM
'The reason to trade Ethier, much as I love him, rather than Pierre, is that you get more in return. Ethier is young and talented and has power;"
All the more reason to keep Ethier. He has a great swing and will only get better (and is 25 to boot!). JuanPierre sucks, everone know sthat. Send him back to Florida or work soemthign out with Chicago.Seeing his puny bat in the lineup with his little gilr arm is an abomination.Besides, Joens might only be with LA for two seasons and then you would have Kemp and Pierre? THer is no forntline 3rd baseman out htere, let LaRoche win the job. Hoepfully soon the LAL lineup will be
C - Martin
1B - Loney
2B - Abreu
3B - La Roche
SS - Hu
LF- Ethier
CF - Jones
RF - Kemp
I also love Delwyn Young.
Did I say that I cannot stand Pierre?
Posted by: Ripper | January 30, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love Ethier. He was the most clutch Dodger last season, delivering extra base hits when everybody else was trying to beat out infield singles. And I dislike Pierre's head for the game, lack of talent, and nancy arm. He'll be better in left than in center, but he's still a liability. His best position is coming off the bench as a pinch-runner/pinch bunter.
Problem is, the rest of the world knows this about Pierre as well, and his trade value is therefore zero. Ethier, on the other hand, has some value in a trade precisely because he's young, cheap, and good. I don't think he'll ever be Manny Ramirez, but he might be Paul O'Neill. (Playing ability, that is; I'm not talking attitude. Some people hate O'Neill; I think he was a gamer).
My ultimate point is if the Dodgers can get a serious upgrade at another position (Starting pitcher, third base), then it's worth trading Ethier. Trading Pierre, on the other hand, will improve left field, but won't bring any other worthwhile players, and will end up costing the Dodgers to eat his ridiculous contract.
Posted by: SaMo | January 30, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Unless you're a Dodger fan who diligently follows the team, you're going to have the opinion that the Dodgers will continue to lack power. It's something I hear a lot. Hence, Kurkjian's opinion. No question, some of what follows involves IF's. But I think there is good reason to be optimisitic that most of the IF's will pan out positively. Here's why I think the Dodgers will have considerablly more power than in previous years.
1B - Loney hit 15 homeruns in 2007 after being called up in June. However, the long wait for Loney's power potoential to blossom seems to have been answered in September, when he hit 9 of his 15. Assuming he stays healthy and plays a full season, I don't think 25 - 30 HR is an unreasonable number to expect.
2B - Kent will be 40, and you never really know when the steep decline will begin. But if Abreu performs well enough to give Kent adequate time off during the season, I see no reason why he can't repeat the 20 HR (maybe 15-20).
SS - A healthy Furcal will provide more power at that position. I think 10-15 is a reasonable estimate.
3B - Between Nomar and LaRoche 15-20 is probably attainable.
C - Martin hit 19 HR in 2007. I think it's reasonable to think he could hit 20-25.
LF - Ethier came into 2007 following a winter in which he focused on rehabbing the shoulder he injured in August 2006, and which caused his slump in September of that year. He went into this past winter healthy, and probably a lot better able to focus on getting stronger. Ethier will be 26 in 2008, and I don't think it unreasonable to think that he could hit 20-25, if he plays regularly. Whether he plays regularly or not is the question. But, if Joe Torre was willing to play Melky Cabrera in front of Johnny Damon, don't think he couldn't come to the same conclusion regarding Ethier vs. Pierre.
CF - In a bad year Andruuw Jones outhomered Juan Pierre 26 to 0. Whatever numbers he puts up, they'll certainly be far greater than anything Pierre did.
RF - If Matt Kemp plays everyday I see no reason why he can't hit 20 -30 HR.
If everyone plays up their potential (and yes, it is a big IF), then Dodger hitters should also benefit from seeing better pitches to hit, since it will be difficult to pitch around anyone if the next hitter presents a power threat.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | January 30, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Brooklyn, you're right — especially about the fact that your predictions are based on all the uncertainty with this young team.
If I may; why are so many fans down on Pierre? C'mon, who ever accused him of being the next Willie Mays? What were your expectations? He's a speedster with a weak hose whose gonna pile up about 200 base knocks a year. He drives opposing pitcers crazy and his defense was probably better the Gonzo's. If you want to say Ned should have signed someone else, fine. But for everyone to act like Pierre is a bum is ridiculous. Also, don't forget, Ned made a run at Soriano, Lee and Matthews. I don't recall the money, but the bottom line is, they all declined. Pierre wanted to come here; he was better than relying on Repko and he produced right at his carreer average. Back off the guy and realize, speed never slumps. One last thought on Pierre, with Furcal nursing a bad wheel last year, how bad would the offense have been without Pierre? Note: I am not advocating that Pierre should get more playing time than Ethier.
Posted by: Paul Simonds | January 31, 2008 at 11:45 AM