Derek Lowe to Atlanta
Nothing's been officially confirmed with a formal announcement, but word around the campfire has free agent Derek Lowe settling in Hotlanta as his next destination. Reportedly, he'll be locked in through 2012 and compensated to the tune of 15 mil per. Bobby Cox loved the "kid" after a meeting. That's easy to believe, since Dodger fans generally loved them some D.Lowe. Sir Sinkerball was among the more consistent Dodger hurlers during his time in L.A., and definitely the team's most durable (basically a lock for 200 innings). What was also impressive about Lowe was a consistent habit of getting better as the season chugged along, whether last season, in 2006 or in 2005.
Really, about the only thing Dodger fans might not like about Lowe was his disinclination to appear excited about staying in L.A. Yes, there was a statement about loving it in L.A. and an offer never coming from Team Colletti, but that feels rather after-the-fact, considering how many previous times he declined to express interest in returning. The folks I've talked to, whether fellow writers or people with the organization (as recently as last Friday) also read his desire for a Blue follow-up as somewhere between lukewarm and nonexistent. That's the explanation I'm buying, for what it's worth.
But here's my question. Assuming Lowe did want another go around at the Ravine, would this price tag and parameters be OK with the Blue Notes faithful? 15 mil isn't exactly cat food. It's ace money. Granted, Lowe has thrown like an ace over the last few seasons, but he'll almost be 36 by the time this contract kicks in, meaning he'll be closing in on 40 by the time it ends. To me, the length is more troubling than the cash involved. If A.J. Burnett is "worth" 8 mil, Lowe is probably worth a little less than double. But even assuming Lowe's enviable health holds steady, the years may finally creep up on him, even as a pitcher that doesn't really overpower hitters. You could be looking at a very expensive #3 or #4 guy by the third or fourth year of this deal.
All in all, I'd have likely done it, given Lowe's track record and the current state of the Dodger rotation. I can't say for sure what the need for him will be in two years, but I'm positive he'd come in handy right this second, and the options beyond him are scarce. Having said that, I could see the deal giving fans the willies, were "Atlanta" an admittedly nickname for "Los Angeles."
Thoughts?
AK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
The big problem here is that this is the topic we (Dodger fans) are forced to talk about. We should be discussing whether or not we signed CC or AJ for too much money. But since we didn't go after any starting pitching (which is what Torre/Colletti/every Dodger fan on the planet, and every sports analyst in the world said was essential), we are left to discuss why we let Derek Lowe get away also. It's been a very frustrating off-season after having victory dangled in fron of our faces last season.
Posted by: Tryin2LuvtheDodgers | January 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM
At this point, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in our front office, led by Frank and Ned, to do the right thing for our beloved Dodgers to win. McCourt is, simply put, a terrible owner. I realize Fox wasn't very good either, but McCourt's a cheapskate who really doesn't have enough money or guts to play with the big boys. Ned Colletti is a complete joke and a disaster. Why, in the name of all that is good and holy, would the dynamic duo not at least make an honest run at keeping Lowe by making an offer? Of course I would be okay with 4 years at $15M. Atlanta might only get three productive years instead of 4, but so what? And why didn't they either play nice and try to keep Brad Penny or at least legitimately go after one of the top pitchers available? Our starting pitching has gone from the best in the NL (which is what Dodger pitching always was and should be) to a total question mark. And another thing: when is Ned ever going to sign someone with power, be it Manny or someone else? What's the deal? I truly think that this bitterly disappointing winter ultimately comes down two things: one, McCourt is too afraid, for economic reasons, to do what it takes to win and has ordered the payroll cut in order to protect his own keister, and two, Ned is incompetent.
Frank, for the good of the Dodger legacy and tradition, fire Ned and then sell the team to an owner who has the money and the cajones to properly own and run this historic, formerly proud franchise.
Posted by: Steve | January 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Well, its official, our most consistent pitcher, no player, is gone. I guess that means, we have to hope numerous pitchers on the staff that have never pitched 200 innings, will. And that scares me.
Posted by: SteelMohawk | January 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
So much of wanting to go play for a championship and the $ didn't matter to Lowe... the NL east has the philies and the mets way above the braves... what a crock of BS. If he wanted to win, he could have stayed in the NL west and gone to some more post-seasons because of our weak division.
Posted by: poppinfresh | January 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I'm available!
Bombko
I'm not. I'll be in Baltimore.
Timberrr
Posted by: Chunkdog | January 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM
poppinfresh- my guess is that Derek had some insight into what the McCourts really wanted to do. he probably saw the obvious indications that they weren't going to be contenders this next season, and for whatever reason, he signed with someone who would at least pay him well, even if they have no shot to win their division. Unfortunately for Derek, he just happened to become a free agent the same year as CC and AJ.
Posted by: Tryin2LuvtheDodgers | January 13, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Tryin'2Luv... I agree, but it just stinks to hear that kind of spin day in and out from Boras' people. They should just be honest as say they are mercenaries like Manny did, I can at least accept honesty. I dont blame Lowe for leaving since he had the worst run support of the last 3 years.
Posted by: poppinfresh | January 13, 2009 at 01:46 PM
They didn't sign him because the range of the contract is for when he is 36-40, which is the range that 99% of big leaguers begin to taper off big time. If they are making such a big stand about giving Ramirez more than two years, why would they change their stand for Lowe? Lowe was great last year, but not so sure how long he is going to keep it up, and for that money he would be our number 1. Everyone has to remember that the Dodgers have AJ dragging them down already and can't take a chance on any old timers weighing the team down over an extended period of time. I totally accept the concept of short term contracts only for old dudes Yes the Dodgers have the money, but they don't have tons of money to throw away making bad decisions (ala Kevin Brown) and unlike the Yankees can’t just keep adding payroll indefinitely.
I would much rather see them using their resources to acquire some pitching with some upside potential rather than pitching that only has downside potential. Realistically this will probably only happen mid season during salary dumps, so acquiring some cheaper older guys right now that can be cut if not needed makes sense.
Posted by: Dodger Dude | January 13, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Well PUBS beware in ATL Derek the Bar fly is in town.
Posted by: pk-in-the-mesa | January 13, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Has everyone suddenly forgotten how mediocre the rest of the NL West was last year? (Of course, up until July 31, 2008, so were the Dodgers ... gulp ...)
Posted by: Rob McMillin | January 13, 2009 at 02:36 PM
The Mets are now offering Oliver Perez 3 years at $10m per year. I would rather have Lowe for next year but Perez has more upside at age 27. He can be brilliant. He is very good in post season games. He did pitch over 190 innings last year. The big negative is that he walked 100 last year.
I am not not comparing him to Koufax except to say that lefties can take more time to develop. Sandy had two 100 walk seasons, with ERAs around 4.0 also before he settled down.
Posted by: Joe the Plumber | January 13, 2009 at 02:44 PM
Yes, Lowe was worth $15 per. The evidence I have read (Baseball Prospectus--don't recall the volume) suggests that pitchers who make it to 32 with consistent results and no significant injury history are pretty much a lock to remain effective through age 40. Sure, they will eventually strike out fewer batters, and a good manager will probably want to give them more 6 inning outings than 8 inning outings, but older pitchers with no injury history age surprisingly well (contrary to hitters, Dodger Dude, who have very predictable declines; it's anyone's speculation as to why they differ on this) So 200 innings of sub-4.00 ERA guaranteed for 4 seasons? Yeah, that's worth ace money.
But hey, if he didn't want to be here, he didn't want to be here (now he'll frequent a few hotlanta bars and ladies, rack up some uncomfortable headlines in the social section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and need to find another town to run away to in 4 years...)
What I don't understand is why I haven't read about the Blue making any sort of run at either of the 30-something pitchers coming from Japan this year. We've done really well scouting the mid-career talent from Japan, so why aren't we after these guys? Relatively low money and predictable results... so what's the holdup?
Also, we suddenly appear to need to offer a high-risk deal to Sheets. What are the odds that happens?
Posted by: VA Blueblood | January 13, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Is his agent Arn Tellem? Maybe there's hope for him coming back. :)
Posted by: dalegribel | January 13, 2009 at 02:52 PM
never mind about the Japanese free agents. I just read that Kawakami has also signed with the Braves and Uehara inked with the Orioles.
But still, AK/BK, was there any talk about these guys around the Ravine? They seem like relatively low-cost, fairly sure-thing solutions to a weak rotation... so why didn't we take a look at these fellas?
Posted by: VA Blueblood | January 13, 2009 at 03:05 PM
If he gets his 200 innings for ATL they will be paying him $75,000 an inning. With a 15 pitch inning that's $5000 per pitch. By the way, the LAD payroll 20 years ago ('89) was $21.071,562...just about what Manny would cost.
Posted by: A Scanner Darkly | January 13, 2009 at 03:39 PM
By the way, Lowe will be 39 in the final year of his contract (4th year of his contract is 3 years from now).
Lowe was a solid #2-3 starter, but definitely not worth $15 million per year. Those resources can best be used elsewhere (Manny, Dunn, a good, but cheaper pitcher, whatever).
I admit to wishing the Dodgers had done more up until now, if only because of the uncertainty. But I cannot agree with those who believe this offseason has been a disaster. Fact is, it ain't over yet. Even though he turned out to be a dud, Andruw Jones wasn't signed until the middle of January last year. In 2004 the Dodgers didn't acquire Milton Bradley until a day or two before the start of the season. To a large degree, the progress (or lack thereof) in acquiring players is not completely in the Dodgers' hands. For example, in attempting to sign Manny they're dealing with an agent (Boras) who is notoriously patient, and willing to take negotiations to the brink. Some of you would just sheepishly accede to his demands. Coletti probably can't do that and remain credible in any future negotiations.
Whatever the case, everyone should just relax and see how it plays out. I just think it's too early to reach any definitive conclusions.
Posted by: Brooklyn Dodger | January 13, 2009 at 03:55 PM
I'm sure Lowe is still going to have some stuff in the next few years, but you have to remember that the player you are buying now is more like Jeff Weaver when he played for the Dodgers rather than Derek Lowe of the last few years. These guys can hang in there, but there stuff is not top shelf material any more. Hitters loose it more quickly because the first thing to go is your reflexes, the last to go is your strength.
Posted by: Dodger Dude | January 13, 2009 at 04:31 PM
VA Blueblood,
The only way we would see Kawakami or Uehara in Dodger Blue next season would be if Remax included the contract rights to either one as a throw in to the $41 million mansion purchased by Jamie McCourt this offseason.
Let's face it...Frank & Jamie have a new Ocean View, and don't give a damn if next season the Dodgers play like poo.
I feel so embarassed for what Frank has let the Dodger Team and our proud tradition become...
Posted by: DodgerBlueBalls | January 13, 2009 at 04:37 PM
I thought I was being facetious when I suggested the Dodgers are only interested in competing in even-numbered years. In odd years (2005, 2007, and now 2009), they don't have any compunction about putting an inferior product on the field.
I can understand individual reasons for not signing Sabathia (too many years), Burnett (too much money) SHeets (too injury prone), and Lowe (Too old), but taken together, it's clear the Dodgers never had any plan to sign any ace starting pitchers at any price. It seems they are putting all their money into wishing real hard that Jason Schmidt will get better.
Then again, the fans are signing up for tickets faster than they were last year, so what's Frank's incentive for putting a better product out there? If you can sell out the building with a crap team, why pay for a good one?
Posted by: SaMo | January 13, 2009 at 05:09 PM
Clearly Lowe doesn't care about winning. This is exactly why Baseball Players are crappy humans. This is Lowe showing his true colors... not a teammate, just a guy collecting bucks on a rebuilding team. At his age, he shoulda signed with the Mets at the very least. I hope Atlanta gives him less runs than the Dodgers did.
Posted by: benzojones | January 13, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Anyone here who's complaining about Lowe wanting to make what he's worth (in the current baseball market) needs to redirect their anger toward the Dodgers' front office. Name another team in baseball that drops $70M from its 2008 payroll and yet won't spend some dough to retain its most consistent, durable pitcher. The only reason I can think of for this brutal misstep is that Frank McCourt simply does not have the money. Anyone at the Times care to investigate the man's finances and get to the bottom of this? I hear real estate (the bulk of his investments) isn't doing too well.
Posted by: Steven Chean | January 13, 2009 at 08:51 PM
why would lowe stay in la, yeah he can make the playoffs here but the dodgers just want to win the west! At least the braves think about winning the W.S not just the East!!!
Posted by: KingMayan! | January 13, 2009 at 08:56 PM
I believe all the gloom and doom about the current state of the defending NL West Champion Dodger franchise is overstated. Any team with a core group of good young players like the Dodgers have is a team with hope, and the signing of Furcal was huge. In a month when Manny is back in the fold and we have either Garland or Wolf taking one of the rotation spots, things will be looking up.
Posted by: VaDodger | January 14, 2009 at 04:55 AM
Garland or Wolf? Yeah, that will lock up the title.
Posted by: Chunkdog | January 14, 2009 at 09:27 AM
now "nifty ned" is supposedly zero-ing in on washed-up Kris Benson............too bad the Mets "punked" ned by signing former Dod. Cora (he would have been purrrrrrrrrrfect for Ned's plan on signing washed-up former dodgers)
Posted by: EveryDayIsWashDay4Ned | January 14, 2009 at 09:37 AM