Question of the day: A third year for Casey Blake?
Keep in mind, we're talking about the player connected to the beard, not the beard itself. We'd sign Casey Blake's beard to a three-year deal, a five-year deal, a 10-year deal. Whatever was required to keep that soup strainer in the organization. Price? No object! (Thanks again to reader Mike for the image, from our Photoshop contest last season.)
Unfortunately, the question before the front office isn't simply one of facial hair retention but of the entire player. According to his agent Jim McDowell, the Dodgers and Twins have both made competitive two-year offers to Blake, and the first to guarantee a third will probably win the derby. In terms of figures, it looks like we're in the ballpark of $6 million a year. Not an outrageous amount of scratch, but at the same time, if my math is correct Blake would be 38 by the end of the deal, and while he played a steady third base for the Dodgers this year, he wasn't exactly the rangiest fellow patrolling the hot corner.
There are also questions about his bat.
Blake was red hot after arriving in L.A. from Cleveland but slowed down considerably in August and September. Over the last few seasons, he seems to have settled into an 18-22 HR/70-80 RBI range, which isn't a killer but not far above replacement level, according to the fine folks at Baseball Prospectus. It's reasonable to ask if Blake can keep that up as age continues to rob the reflexes. Projections -- and logic -- say there will be a decline.
If Blake was a plus glove, you'd feel better about the whole thing, but he's not.
So is 3/$18 a good investment for the Dodgers? I like Blake. He's a good guy, a steadying clubhouse influence and a solid enough supplemental bat in the '09 lineup assuming the Dodgers can build in with power around him. It would also fill one lineup hole for the Dodgers heading into next season, taking a few questions off the table in a crowded offseason and making it easier to focus on those that remain. But unless the Dodgers are willing to turn him into a part-time player down the line, I'd stay away. The idea of being committed to Blake as a starting 3B at age 37 isn't at all appealing.
It's not a crippling financial obligation, and I'd always rather see the Dodgers pay for slightly-better-than-average performance than trade for it, but if the Dodgers decide to pony up for that third year, they have to understand they're paying for stability in '09, but not much else. There's a good chance the team will be looking again for an upgrade in 2010. That leaves -- or at least seriously risks -- about $12 million in dead weight in the following two seasons.
BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
i would make a move for beltre instead - either now or when he becomes a free agent
Posted by: jro | December 04, 2008 at 10:24 AM
it's a talent thing. blake's talent will not carry him through age 38. he'll be sub .250 hitter with little power by then. and he'll strike out even more and walk less. manny, on the other hand, has so much talent, we're talking maybe top ten all time, that he could easily maintain his level of play through age 40. if the dodgers guarantee 3 years for blake but don't go for 4 for manny, they will be showing their true colors, greedy owners looking solely to pad their wallets and put a mediocre, average team on the field. what is this i hear about the mccourt's buying $50 million estates in malibu? and they're talking about baseball fields? seems to me they're taking care of themselves first.
Posted by: HI Dodger Fan | December 04, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I would want Beltre back too but it seems like the Dodgers don't want to fork out any big cash. I think there won't be a lot of free agent signings at the Winter Meetings next week because the Dodgers are on a slow wait and see policy.
Posted by: Blue Gal | December 04, 2008 at 11:33 AM
First of all, Adrian Beltre has a no-trade clause in his contract and one of the 5 teams that he can block a trade to is the Dodgers, ie: HE DOESNT WANT TO PLAY FOR THE DODGERS. For that reason, and with the shortage of availabe 3rd baseman in this years market and the markets for '10 and '11 being thin as well, it makes sense to sign Casey Blake to a 3yr deal at a minimal $6 mil a year. You can't compare signing Manny to signing Blake. Manny is gonna cost 20 million at age 40 playing a position where there will be multiple alternatives, while casey blake will cost 6 million at age 38 at a postion with few alternatives in the market. Im not saying we shouldnt sign Manny, but I think signing Blake asap will make the offseason run smoother and make our holes and options much more clear while providing a solid 3rd baseman for 09 and possibly '10
Posted by: wags | December 04, 2008 at 12:52 PM
What is Joe Crede demanding? At first glance, 3 years seems like two too many for Blake. Nice guy, but not worth $20 mil.
Posted by: SaMo | December 04, 2008 at 01:03 PM
I love the beard but think that we can replace it. Maybe Broxton? I think he has a fierce beard ready to explode. As for a third year for Casey- seems a bit of a stretch. Especially when there's a chance Mike Lowell might be available for 2 years (If the Sox sign Tex) Perhaps Ned can get the Sox to pay a chunk of his salary for us too.
Also with Blake Dewitt is in the wings we have options. We should explore the 2nd base trade targets out there: Cano, Kelly Johnson, Brian Roberts etc. Check the price on Orlando Hudson.
Don't know where that leaves us with SS, but if you plug Lowell in at 3rd and we happened to grab Manny for next year... you could carry Berroa, or even the return of Caesar and you'd at least lock us up defensively.
Posted by: jukuren | December 04, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Hey BK, I'm the one who asked about Beltre a couple days ago on facebook. Thanks for the reply. Blake for three years bothers me because of his age, but at $6 mil/yr would be relatively cheap. Beltre still remains my favorite as he should have never been allowed to leave in the first place. I think he could be convinced to waive that no-trade clause per the comments he made a couple of months back. But I think it's unlikely Ned&Co would be able to or be willing to pull off a sensible trade.
I really don't want to see Crede wearing the Dodger blue - such talk scares me.
Posted by: WolframHart | December 04, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Casey Blake for 2 years, I'd say okay. But the third year is too much for his age. I'd rather have DeWitt at 3B and sign/trade for a 2B like Hudson, Cano, Uggla, etc. There are more (and better) options at 2B right now, and the Dodgers have the luxury of having DeWitt play either position.
Furthermore, to hell with Adrian Beltre. Why the longing to have him back in L.A? He had his chance to be a Dodger for life and he blew it. He burned his bridge by not taking the Dodgers' offer after the 2004 season. The Dodgers could have traded him when he was not living up to his potential in any of the 6 years from 1998-2003, but they didn't. They were patient with him and made him the player he finally became in his "breakout year" of 2004. So he honors that by chasing the dollar and going to Seattle? I hope he's had fun losing 90 games every season.
Posted by: Higgins | December 04, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Bringing back Blake would be a huge mistake. He's at best an average defensive third baseman, and a .260-.270 hitter, with OK power, but nothing to get excited about. Without considering other options at 3B (trades, etc.) I believe that DeWitt is the better choice at third. He's far superior defensively (although he's not on the list provided in the link, I recently read that DeWitt's range factor in 2008 was .310, which would have lead that list. Apparently he didn't play enough to qualify).
As for power, DeWitt is not without that attribute. His 9 HRs in 368 ABs was certainly competitive with Blake's 10 in 211 ABs, especially when you consider that DeWitt was 12 years younger and far less experienced. While Blake's power could begin to decline, DeWitt's is likely to increase as he continues to mature and gain experience. Over time (probably soon) DeWitt should equal or surpass Blake's power numbers. Also, DeWitt drew 45 walks in his 368 ABs, whereas Blake drew only 16 walks in his 211 ABs. That DeWitt is the better choice at 3B, is to me a no brainer.
Also, signing Blake for 3 years gives us another Kent/Nomar type signing. The last thing this team needs is an aging veteran clogging the roster with salary that could be used more productively elsewhere.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | December 04, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Although Beltre could be a nice pickup, the price would have to be VERY low. The Dodgers would be doing Seattle a favor by relieving them of $12 million. Also, Beltre is in the final year of his contract, and would likely be only a one year rental, especially since his agent is Boras. Again, on this one it's CHEAP in players surrendered, or no deal. Is it OK to dream that Seattle would take JP?
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | December 04, 2008 at 05:00 PM
Brooklyn i agree with you that Dewitt is our 3B, but looking at 2B this year on the market scares me. There are also no 3B out there besides blake that are solid. Sure he can't play balls out defense or hit 20 HR, but he is there to stabilize the infield and bat 6th or so in the lineup. Beltre was given a great shot in the dodgers system and walked away, i dont see him coming back and saving us. He will likely have 5 more HR's than blake and a few more outs saved on defense, but i dont think he contributes any intangibles like blake would. We need a good veteran in the house and i think he is it. Dan Uggla at 2B is an interesting suggestion, but i am not sure he is a great upgrade over Dewitt.
If we were to trade for an infielder I would go for Zimmerman from WA. 24 years old, great defense and pop in his bat. WA might be desperate to rebuild yet again, you never know, toss in a few prospects and he might be had.
The SS position doesn't scare me as much as other people, our SS is likely to bat 8th anyways, so why worry about a kid who can't hit. Let Hu try it out, Omar in cleveland/SF did great as a fielder only, ozzie smith did quite well on defense alone. I would rather have somebody like hu costing 400,000 flash leather than blow 12 million on jack wilson. They will hit about the same and play the same defense, so why pay more for an aging wilson? If Hu can't get it done we have dejesus right behind him. I say let em play it out in spring training and if they cant get it going then trade for a stopgap till they are ready. We were scared about 3B this last year and dewitt changed all that... i am thinking the SS can be the same thing this next year...
Posted by: poppinfresh | December 05, 2008 at 08:02 AM
i liked him in 300.
Posted by: 88 | December 05, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Can anyone post or send me the analysis that this site or MSTI did on the Dodgers' trade for Blake? They were really good, but I can't find either of them. If I remember correctly, they would seem to point to a "No 3rd year...or second or first for Blake."
Posted by: Dodger Doodle | December 08, 2008 at 11:24 AM