The Dodgers, beneficiaries of great performances at the plate from Russell Martin and Blake DeWitt and Chan Ho Park and Hong-Chi Kuo on the mound on their way to a 6-3 win Saturday afternoon in Anaheim against the Angels, will look to make it two of three this afternoon in, oh, a couple hours.  Brad Penny's scheduled start will be delayed by a day as a result of arm stiffness after a between-starts bullpen session, and Derek Lowe, working on short rest, will swap spots with him.  Jered Weaver pitches for LAAoA. 

Jason Schmidt had a successful rehab outing for the Class A Inland Empire 66ers. Not quite as good a day as John Lindsey had for the 51's in Vegas, but still pretty good.  Nine batters, 34 pitches, three Ks, one walk. 

Very interesting column today from Bill Shaikin of the LAT, discussing the trend for smaller market teams to lock up their best young players early, assuming the risk of diminished performance for salary certainty through the years of arbitration and early free agency.  With the likes of Russell Martin, James Loney, Chad Billingsley, Andre Ethier, and Matt Kemp, certainly the Blue will be in a position to follow suit.  Shakin argues, though, that teams like the Dodgers, who can pay the prevailing market rate for good players, don't have to dive in with early money.  Shaikin reports that the Blue have twice tried to open the early-contract door with Russell Martin, and were twice turned down.  It's an interesting debate, and the risks are substantial (ask the Indians if they'd like that Travis Hafner money back...).  Which leads to today's QOTD:

Should the Dodgers do what they can to lock up their best young players sooner rather than later?  If so which ones do you want to see signed first?

BK

It's been a topsy turvy, whirlwind of an up and down, box of chocolates thrill ride for the Blue over the first 21% of the '08 season.  Lots of good, lots of bad, lots of issues still floating over the squad.  Thankfully, as we always do when 21% of the season is in the books, we can ask some questions and try to address them.  Questions of the Day, if you will. Feel free to answer along! 

Q: What to do with Blake DeWitt?

This is a toughie, one that AK and I discussed at length in yesterday's Purple, Gold, and Blue podcast.  Certainly he's been terrifyingly good over the last week or so, has shown great poise and patience, and a couple muffs notwithstanding, solid skills at third.  But if he was to Wally Pipp both Nomar Garciaparra and Andy LaRoche, I have a feeling that over the long haul, he'd cool off considerably.  I don't mean this to diminish what the future mayor of Sikeston has accomplished, but in some ways he's been the beneficiary of low expectations in the same way that Andy LaRoche was punished by high ones when he struggled last year.  Nobody expected anything from DeWitt, so that he's been legitimately good makes it seem even better.  I'm still of the mind that a) over a full season his production will taper (wait, I already said that- damn!), b) it's important to get LaRoche back and playing, and finally give him a chance to establish himself, and c) back to DeWitt, it's better to send a kid down with a fully positive experience rather than waiting for him to stall, then shipping him out. 

In his column this morning, the LAT's Bill Plaschke revisits a topic that was hot coming out of Spring Training (you know, like, a month ago), that of Clayton Kershaw.  With the Dodgers struggling, seven games behind the Diamondbacks and seemingly in need of more pitching to bolster a flagging offense, Plaschke advocates the promotion of Kershaw to the big club:

"You don't have to use him every five days. You don't have to use him for more than 70 pitches at a time. You can even stick him in the bullpen for a couple of months.

But you need to bring up Clayton Kershaw, and you need to do it now.

"I have to tell you," said General Manager Ned Colletti, "that thought has crossed my mind."

Of course it has.

Has anybody watching the Dodgers not thought about it?"

It's a classic debate about pushing a top prospect, the future of the franchise in a lot of ways, too quickly to satisfy short term needs.  The pros and cons are numerous. So with that, I ask today's QOTD:

Should the Blue promote Kershaw now?  Should they wait until later in the season?  Should they resist the urge entirely?

The Dodgers have lost 10 of 14, and only the largess of the slightly-more-inept San Francisco Giants keep them from the NL West cellar.  20 games in, LA is already seven games behind first place Arizona heading into the first game of tonight's quick and dirty two game series against the Snakes.  As a matter of policy, I refuse to call a pair of games on April 23rd and 24th "make or break," but fair to say these games matter.  Lose both, and the Dodgers will find themselves an intimidating nine games back.  That ain't good, even in April.  (Factor in the weekender with Colorado, and the Blue have a big five days ahead of them.)

Which brings me to today's Question of the Day:  On a scale of 1-10, how do you rate the importance of these next two games? 

I'd put them at about a 7, context included, which on my personal scale is pretty damn high for this time of year.

BK

Wow, Mark Reynolds just hit an Esteban Loaiza fastball -- grooved as if placed on a tee -- about 9,000 feet to give the Diamondbacks a 4-0 lead in bottom of the first.  But that's not what I was going to write about.  While I'm still committed to not making any declarations, good or bad, about what Joe Torre is doing with the pitching staff or the lineup.  It's just too early to draw conclusions.  That said, I'm hoping that when Torre says Matt Kemp is still a starter, he means it. 

Juan Pierre is starting again, ostensibly because Kemp is struggling, and just like Jake Peavy on Sunday, Dan Haren isn't exactly the type of pitcher against whom it's easy to break a slump.  But what worries me is that a month from now, the Dodgers will be back where they were last year, without defined roles at key positions.  Then there are the performance questions too. 

Putting aside issues of who you'd rather have in the lineup, how worrisome do you consider a couple early off days for a struggling Kemp?

And as a supplemental Question of the (Evening), when Andruw Jones is batting, am I the only one thinking of this classic exchange from "Friends?"

Monica: Shut up, the camera adds 10 pounds.
Chandler: Ahh, so how many cameras are actually on you?

BK

There aren't a lot of question marks as the Dodgers pack up for Arizona.  We're all interested in left field, there's still a little intrigue around the fifth starter job, and maybe a surprise or two at the end of the bullpen or bench... but more or less we know what the team is going to look like. Which leaves us to discuss things like this- According to the following link, the over/under for Dodgers wins in Vegas is 87.5. 

And that, of course, leads to today's Question of the Day:

You've got your last $100 bucks.  Ignoring that you really shouldn't be gambling with your last c-note, and if you do, it should be on something where the payoff comes quicker than a 162 game baseball season, would you put it on the over or the under, knowing what you know right now?

Temperature check, Dodger Nation! 

BK

Less than a week until pitchers and catchers report to Vero to kick off the 2008 season, on Valentine's Day, no less, and excitement is beginning to percolate.  Most of the loose ends have been tied up, the roster basically set aside perhaps from a surprise or two at the end of the bench or pen.  We all know third base will be a battle between Andy LaRoche and Nomar Garciaparra.  We all know the four outfielders/three outfield spots thing is a festering question.  Andre Ethier, for one, could accept a platoon, but like all players wants to be in the lineup every day.  I like what the Dodgers did this winter, especially given what was available.  I've written all offseason that I think the Dodgers are in position to, with the ever present caveat of good health in mind, compete to win a very competitive division.  Arizona has improved, Colorado is still good, San Diego, if they can score, will be very good, too.  Four good but flawed teams.  The Dodgers won't enter the season as everyone's favorite, but I think they've assembled a solid group that is capable of very good things.  Which leads to today's similarly themed questions:

Is there something the Dodgers forgot this offseason?  Obviously the OF is a huge question, but did they miss the boat somewhere else?  Is there anything that didn't happen after the curtain went down on the '07 season that you find disappointing?  What T's didn't get crossed, or I's dotted?

BK

So it turns out the king's ransom required to land Johan Santana from the Twins wasn't quite all it was cracked up to be.  Yeah, the price was steep for the Mets (four solid prospects), but New York didn't have to surrender two of their top prospects, according to folks who keep track of this sort of thing, in pitcher Mike Pelfrey and OF Fernando Martinez.  They did lose prospects 2,3,4 and 7 according to Baseball America, including young OF Carlos Gomez, who in the limited amounts I saw him play last year (that would be the three game set NY played at the Ravine last June, plus some scattered games on the telly) looked like the fastest human on the planet.  I'm talking comic book fast.  So call it a prince's ransom.  Maybe a duke's.  The point is that NY, assuming they can iron out Santana's extension, nabbed him without giving up any current Major League talent of significance.

Which leads me to today's QOTD: Should the Dodgers have made a move?   Could they have?  In BA's recent assessment of their top 10 prospects, completed in December, numbers 2,3,4, and 7 were Andy LaRoche, Chin-Lung Hu, Scott Elbert, and James MacDonald.  Obviously, the Twins might have asked for/insisted on some of LA's big league young 'uns, so a direct comparison can't be made.  But assuming this sort of thing is what Minnesota was reduced to, would you pull the trigger on that deal to get quite possibly the best pitcher in baseball in return?   Did the Dodgers miss the boat?  Do you think the monster deal Santana and the Mets are negotiating- almost assuredly north of $100 mil, very likely well north- was the sticking point more than the prospects? 

As always, it's not my money, but if that was the holdup, that's a bummer.  I tend to agree with Jon Weisman over at Dodger Thoughts that the Blue didn't necessarily need Santana, but if there's a hurler on the planet worthy of that kind of money/risk, it's him. Santana won't be 29 until March, and has been very durable over his career.  Last year's 3.33 ERA, 219 IP, 15 win season was something of an off year, based on his history. Dude's that filthy.  The Dodgers have a very good rotation.  Santana would have guaranteed them, assuming good health, the best, for at least a couple years.

I doubt Ned Colletti is planning on revealing, at least to me, how deeply the Blue got involved in the revised Santana talks.  But if the cost in Major League/near Major League talent would have been LaRoche, Hu, Elbert, and MacDonald?  Or some similar combo?  Plus a small nation's GDP in cash? 

It's all extremely hypothetical of course, but I'd have done that. 

BK

Resisting the urge to dive into the Roger Clemens mess, I think it could be a good day to turn to the Hall of Fame, where Tuesday we'll all find out who will be having his face cast in metal and slapped on a plaque.  Jayson Stark of ESPN.com voted for eight guys, including a few he thinks have been unfairly forgotten over the years. (He includes Andre Dawson, a dude I absolutely believe is HOF worthy- love The Hawk!).   No Dodgers appear on his list, but it got me thinking (never a good thing) which leads me to this QOTD:

What former Dodger (with, let's say... at least two years in Blue) isn't enshrined in the Hall that you think should be there?  If you don't have a Hall-worthy selection, is there a player you feel has been more generally deprived of a lofty place in baseball lore?

BK

Although maybe a little bit, in a very roundabout way.

ESPN.com's Jeff Pearlman took an interesting look at Mets GM Omar Minaya, who's taken some heat over the team's influx of Latin players.  Some Mets fans feel Minaya's heritage creates a natural inclination towards players of similar backgrounds and that said inclination has gotten out of hand.  Blog posters have accused Minaya of (at minimum) prioritizing the best Latin players ahead of the best white or black counterpart or (at worst) enacting a racist policy.  Pearlman takes exception to this Metropolitan outcry, but he understands where the disenfranchised (and those actually applauding Minaya if this characterization is accurate) would be on the lookout for more players to "call their own."  Pearlman recalls his own hero worship towards Steve Ratzer and Ross Baumgarten as a Jewish kid growing up in New York, so the idea of identifying with players along those lines hardly strikes him as anything out of the ordinary. 

But is it appropriate would be the question, I guess. 

I'll be honest. As someone who covers baseball for at least part of my living, I'm a little ashamed at the incredible apathy I feel towards the National League Championship Series.  Here we have the Rockies and the D-Backs, two teams who beat out the Dodgers for the NL West and Wild Card (or at the very least, got to watch/benefit while L.A. dissolved) duking it out for a chance to represent the NL in the Series.  No matter which team makes it, there will be some serious Cinderella potential, because either will be a serious underdog against Cleveland or Boston.   

But while I'd like to see Colorado win (A: I think they'll match up better against the AL's representative in the next round, which I'll watch because it's the World Series, and B: you have to love a team that wins a billion games in a row to get where they are), I just don't particularly care to tune in to see them try.  But that's just me.  Which leads to tonight's very simple QOTD: Do you care about the NLDS?  If so, why?  Does it go beyond the simple notion of hoping to make the best possible World Series?

BK

It's coming sooner than hoped for fans, players, and management alike, but alas the end is near.  A season that began with all of the excitement and anticipation of the premiere of Eyes Wide Shut will end with all the frustration and bewilderment felt by those who actually saw and suffered through it.  Same sense of disappointment, same sense of confusion and "what might have been."  No nudity, of course, but the metaphor works.  Go back and rent it if you have to.  And now that a week's worth of Armageddon (now I'm talking about the losing streak, not the equally awful film) has ended with a win on Sunday, it's time to take a look at the next week.  Whether you believe, to touch on the topic of the week, the children "are the future" or "of the Corn," six more games remain on the schedule, and they need to be played.  Which leads to today's question:

What are you looking for over the last week?  Is there anything that can start to get the sour taste of '07 out of your mouth, and get you excited for '08?   

The good news is that the Dodgers are, once again, officially playing good baseball.  They've won 13 of 20.  David Wells has stabilized the non-Esteban Loaiza parts of the starting staff.  Nomar is back and seems to be hitting.  Luis Gonzalez has become a fairly productive player again.  James Loney never, ever gets out.  Rafael Furcal is rounding back into good form, while Juan Pierre has rather quietly been in it for a while.

If they had played like this in July and early August, the Dodgers would very likely be leading the wild-card chase, and maybe the NL West, too. 

But unfortunately, they sucked for six weeks or so, and now "good baseball" won't do the trick.  Four of six against the Padres and D-Backs?  Nice, but unless you think the half game they've gained on San Diego since Sept. 3 is awesome, not substantive progress.  And make sure to move to the right lane so Philly can pass safely.  Good baseball is fine when a team is ahead.  One that's behind needs to play in a manner that would befit the end of a Disney movie.  Nothing but guts, nothing but wins.  Last season the Dodgers were essentially forced to win out to make the playoffs, and they got it done.  This year, they'll have to do about the same over their final 13, or golf season will come early for the players.  So today, it's the same question we've been asking, and again it's time to go on record:

Will the Dodgers make the playoffs? 

The Dodgers have now gone 19 consecutive innings without disrupting the pearl-like string of 0's on the scoreboard, which leads to the QOTD:

How many frames will the streak run before the Blue push a run across?  How will they eventually score?  I'm putting the over/under at 23 ... and taking the over.  24.  Two runs in the fifth on three consecutive Cincinnati errors. 

(Hey, sometimes you have to have a little fun during the dark times.)

-- BK

The Dodgers surrendered their hold on first place after last night's 3-1 loss to the Giants.  Randy Wolf is on the shelf for the foreseeable future- he said last night he won't pick up a ball until his shoulder feels "perfect."  Fingers crossed, Derek Lowe will step back into the rotation this weekend... but can you be sure?   Jeff Kent's hammy got yippy at a terrible moment.  The offense that was humming at the top of July was back in hibernation by the end of it.  The bullpen looks tired.  James Loney and Matt Kemp have cooled off a little (what, they weren't going to hit .450?).  And I hear the entire stadium has only three Dodger Dogs left.  Three!   That's it.  Okay, I made that last part up, but if I had a Doomsday Whistle, I'd sound it. Why?  Because the dramatic effect lends itself to the following two Questions of the Day!

1) The Dodgers left the non-waiver trade period with only Scott Proctor to show for it.  Should they have done more?  What would "more" have looked like?
2) Do the Blue have enough in the tank to win the NL West?  Gloomy as things seem right now, remember this team is still only a couple games away from having the National League's best record.

Baseball is a team sport.  It takes 25 guys, all pulling in the same direction with a common purpose and shared sense of self for a team to succeed.  There is no I.  The only name that matters is the one on the front of the jersey, screw the ones on the back.  All for one, one for all!  No one member of the collective is any more important than another, no one player more key than the next. 

So with that in mind, here's today's QOTD:  What player do you see as the key to L.A.'s second half success?  Who's that guy who can step up and push them past the finish line?

Forced jokey intro aside, obviously more than one Dodger is going to have to perform if the Blue are going anywhere.  Jeff Kent's recent surge needs to continue.  It wouldn't hurt for Nomar to pick it up in parks outside the L.A. metropolitan area.  Brad Penny and Derek Lowe need to keep being Brad Penny and Derek Lowe.  But in my mind, there's one semi-wild card from whom a big second half pushes the Dodgers from a good team to one that could potentially haul home some important hardware:  Chad Billingsley.

On paper, this weekend's series against the San Diego Padres has all the makings of blockbuster Friday-Sunday.  The two teams tied for the top spot in the National League's hottest and most competitive division.   A So Cal rivalry between two cities separated by miles of 405 traffic.  And if the hype over Jose Cruz Jr's chance to get some payback against the team that cut him last season wasn't enough, you've got Andre Ethier squaring off against the franchise now employing the dude L.A. swapped for him.

Most folks have the luxury of lounging on Sundays, so it was fitting that Roger Clemens would use this particular day of the week to announce he's joining the Yankees.  That the proclamation came during the 7th inning was a nice touch, since he boarded the U.S.S. Steinbrenner twenty-nine games into the season and won't be required to travel with the team during roadies he's not scheduled to pitch.  Throw in the fact that nobody's really denying the permeating "rental" vibe, and it all makes sense that the 7th inning stretch would serve as a sounding board venue.  Why not announce it to the world while everyone's grabbing a beer, singing "Take me out the ballgame," or doing anything other than really focusing on the team?  It's not like Clemens is focusing on it, either. 

The Andy LaRoche Era (cue majestic trumpets) began Sunday afternoon in Atlanta, and in a clear '06 flashback moment, was brought on less by a top prospect bashing down the door, but by necessity. In this case, the inability of Wilson Betemit to get rolling.  In non-pinch hitting roles, at least.  LaRoche was promoted despite struggling in spring training (.175, no homers, a single RBI) and at AAA Las Vegas (.235/3/11). Grady Little said the kid will get a legitimate shot to stay in the lineup, which brings me to today's question (and its natural follow ups, of course):

How do you think LaRoche will produce at the Major League level?  Is it a good thing that he was brought up under these conditions?  Do you think he'll give the job back at any point?

  To say Wilson Betemit is off to a slow start offensively is like saying the Lakers are in a little trouble in their playoff series or that Don Imus has had some trouble at the office- a fairly massive understatement.  To put things in perspective, Randy Wolf, Brad Penny, Derek Lowe, and Jason Schmidt all have better BAs than Betemit's .122.  In only 41 ABs, Betemit has struck out 11 times, good for second on the team.   If he had ten hits in his next ten trips to the plate, Betemit still would be under .300.  For now, Grady Little will stick with him, but that begs the question:

For how long should they let him work through his problems before making a change?

As MLB's Jackie Robinson Day celebration approaches, the sports world has entertained a wide variety of debates and discussions about his legacy, from the number of African-American managers and front office execs to the the shrinking number of black players on Major League rosters.  One of the most intriguing to me is the question of how many players should be wearing 42 Sunday afternoon.  Every Dodger will have it on his back, as will over 150 players across baseball, something that isn't sitting well with everyone.  The fear, of course, is that the intended tribute is diluted by the sheer volume of players wearing his number.

So here's the question: What is the best way to honor Robinson's legacy?  Should so many players, including white players (the Cardinals, for example, a team with only one African-American player, are among the squads who are all wearing 42) be part of this tribute? 

For the next hour or so, the Dodgers are still just a team on paper. An empty page. A blank slate.  Infinite possibilities. OK, so the first game of a 162 doesn't exactly wipe that away, but hopefully you get my point. The real games are starting, meaning it's time to lay it on the line from a prognosticating standpoint. Time for bold predictions, which I will only reference down the road if it looks like I might be correct.  I'll kill the suspense by stating the important stuff early, then explaining myself below:

This year, the Dodgers will win 93 games and more important, their first playoff series since '88.   

Tommy Lasorda, if these accusations are patently false?  Or the... um, employees in question, if he was indeed a customer? 

Well, the truth will hopefully reveal itself soon enough.  And I'm telling you right now.  If it turns out Jody "Babydol" Gibson's accusations aren't true (although really, if an ex-con madam nicknamed "Babydol" with one "L" isn't a credible source, who is?), I'm suing the hell outta this chick for causing my brain to picture one of the least appealing visuals of all time, even if just for a fleeting second.  I am beyond damaged.  She better have some deep prostitution-cash pockets (or make a boatload in royalties, now that she's a respected author) because this lady is getting taken to the cleaners.   

In the category of "people who don't give a rat's ass about being named in this book," I give you, ex-Sex Pistol Steve Jones.  My guess is he'll sleep easy.  And does anyone else think it's odd that this story managed to break without Charlie Sheen's name being mentioned once?

AK

Heading into the season, assuming everyone stays healthy (and I mean, really, what could possibly go wrong in terms of injury?) there aren't too many significant questions to answer for the Dodgers, at least as far as forecasting the opening day roster.  Yeah, there could be some tinkering with the back end of the bullpen if guys like D.J. Houlton throw really well.  And the fifth starter is up for grabs (assuming he pitches well, I still vote for Hong-Chih Kuo), but not much else.  On the bench, James Loney and Marlon Anderson look to be the lefty bats, with Ramon Martinez, Jason Repko, Mike Lieberthal, and Olmedo Saenz coming in from the right side.  And the details, like where Russell Martin will bat and whether switch-hitting Wilson Betemit will hit lefties well enough to avoid a platoon still have to be ironed out.  But I don't think there will be a lot of non-injury related surprises.  So that leads to today's question:

Given that position battles aren't the centerpiece of camp this year, what are you looking for?  What's the most intriguing aspect of spring training '07 in your mind?  Am I missing something, in terms of surprises?  If someone does rise up, who will it be?

It's shaping up to be an interesting season in an improved NL West, and suffice to say the Dodgers haven't sat idly by watching the rest of the competition get better.  They've added arms to the pitching staff, a few bats (but no big one- more to come on that) to the lineup, and kept the young players that should be a) the foundation of the franchise over the next few years, or b) the foundation of major trades over the next few years.  Both have significant value, especially in the once-again-crazy financial landscape of baseball.  Here you can see how Ned Colletti put the '07 Dodgers together.   And now that the offseason is basically over- pitchers and catchers report on the 16th- you can grade his work. 

And, as if we were a bunch of kids at a middle school mixer, I'll start just to break the ice and get things going.

Is it really, as Tom Petty would say, the hardest part?  And I don't mean that rhetorically.  I'm literally asking y'all, since I haven't experienced a blue concession stand or parking lot line in quite some time.  Are both still a hassle? 

It's funny how I spend so much time on Elysian Park Ave. during the season, but remain in a complete bubble when it comes to this topic.  The way media access works, I gotta hit the Ravine so early, I could watch "Roots" in its entirety and still catch the opening pitch.  Locker rooms open three and a half hours before the game begins.  From there, you have two hours and forty-five minutes to talk with Grady Little, chat with players, flag down Ned Colletti, etc.  In an ideal world, you'd get there about 90 minutes before game time, rack some copy, take a few notes, file a pre-game report and grab a little din-din.  In-N-Out like a burger.

Not surprisingly, the Monday Night Miracle (I have trouble calling it that, having grown up a Blues fan, but don't have any other ideas) was tops on Jayson Stark's list of baseball achievements in 2006.  Or any other year, for that matter.  Owing to the fact the game was among the most amazing things I or anyone else has ever seen in sports, I'm assuming it was the memorable moment for most of you from last season.  But as we wind down 2006 (cue light string music...), it's time to step back and contemplate the other great moments provided by the Blue.   Was your favorite (besides four homers on seven pitches followed by a seemingly crushing run given up in the tenth before Nomar's two run walkoff homer) the scoreless duel between Greg Maddux and Jason Schmidt, won by a Russell Martin solo shot, in a game that rather refreshingly took about eleven minutes to complete?  (String music builds...)  Was it the first time you heard that goofy remix of Hey Jude and realized Sammy Saito could pitch?  Are you the downbeat sort that will let the memory of the Mets series dominate your gray matter?

(Crescendo...) To paraphrase the ubiquitous Dodger commercials of 2006, "What did you take home?"

BK

(fade out...)

So some time with my Thanksgiving turkey has not helped me appreciate the gift of 5/$44 for Juan Pierre any more than I did before, but thanks to Bill Stoneman, there's now some more oddish behavior from a (semi) local team to discuss. The Angels, after passing and passing and passing on trades, missing out on free agent signings, and generally giving sports talk radio types a reason to poke them with a stick (not always deserved, given their track record of success over the last few years), have given 5/$50 to Gary Matthews Jr. That's a major investment in the belief that Matthews Jr. will be the guy from last season well into his 30s, as opposed to the player he was in every other year over his career.