Revenge of the Rapists
January 25, 2009 at 10:03 am | In Revenge of the Nerds, rape | Leave a Comment
In Revenge of the Nerds, we’re supposed to sympathize with the Tri-Lams in their fight against the cruel Alpha Betas.
Obviously, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, but did no one notice how awful the nerds were? I mean, not only did they break all kinds of sexual harrassment, tresspassing, and wiretapping laws with their installation of the cameras into the sorority house, Lewis literally raped Betty in the moon room.
Just look at that guy. If that doesn’t shout “future pedophile” to you, I don’t know what does.
Needs More Free Agent Signings
December 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm | In Joe Beimel, Mark Loretta, Rickie Weeks, baseball prospectus | 5 CommentsFrom the official email:
LOS ANGELES – The National League West Division Champion Los Angeles Dodgers today have offered salary arbitration to outfielder Manny Ramirez, starting pitcher Derek Lowe, and infielder Casey Blake. General Manager Ned Colletti made the announcement.
The three players have until 9:00 p.m. PST on December 7 to accept the offer and doing so would ensure their spot on the 2009 roster. As “Type A” free agents, if Ramirez and Lowe do not accept arbitration and choose to sign with another team, the Dodgers will receive two draft picks apiece from that club. Blake, a “Type B” free agent, would net the Dodgers a supplemental draft pick if he elects to sign elsewhere.
The Dodgers did not offer arbitration to the following free agents: Joe Beimel, Gary Bennett, Rafael Furcal, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Johnson, Jeff Kent, Greg Maddux, Pablo Ozuna, Chan Ho Park, Brad Penny, and Mark Sweeney.
No-brainer decisions on Manny, Lowe, and Blake, for sure. Most of the guys who didn’t get offered aren’t really problematic either, and before you protest, Furcal doesn’t return any draft picks due to his being injured all year, and if the team really wanted Penny back, they’d have just picked up his option. (Which I still believe they should have). The one question I do have is on Joe Beimel. It’s rare that a non-closer reliever is able to pick up a multi-year contract, and all indications are that he’s going to pick up at least two years and possibly three from someone. That being the case, why not extend arbitration? The worst thing that could happen is that he accepts and you have to pay him a little more than you wanted, but it would only be for one year. Besides, we all know there was no way he was going to take it. Might as well take the free draft pick.
(I love that it was even theoretically possible that guys like Mark Sweeney and Pablo Ozuna could have been offered arbitration. What were they going to say? “No, no, we don’t need to have an independent arbiter! You really want to give me a job? I’ll take whatever you want! I’ll take the minimum! In pesos!”)
Seems like it’s time for a tour of the blogosphere…
* At Baseball Prospectus, Joe Sheehan pretends he’s the GM of the Dodgers. I assume this means he neglected to include the picture of himself with a mustache and cowboy boots. I won’t copy the whole article here, but let’s look at the takehome points…
Sign Derek Lowe for four years and $62 million. He’s the best fit for this team and this payroll, and there should be some value to Lowe in not having to relocate. If there’s not, ply him with additional money.
Love it. It’s unfortunate that Lowe’s already told just about everyone that he’s not interested in staying on the West Coast and sounds almost certain to end up back with the Red Sox, or at least another Eastern team.
Trade Xavier Paul and Victor Garate to the Brewers for Rickie Weeks; then make Weeks a center fielder. It’s a low bid, and honestly, I’m skeptical enough of DeJesus’ power and ability to play shortstop than I might deal him if that’s what it took to get Weeks.
First of all, the fact that the first name I see when I type in “Weeks” into baseball-reference is “Charlie Manlove” makes the twelve-year-old in me laugh endlessly. I’m not so sure about this one on two fronts, though. First of all, I’d have to think that Paul and Garate aren’t nearly enough to get Weeks; second of all, I’m just not sure how much I’d want him. Let’s just say you can turn him into a center fielder, which is of course questionable at best. I know he’s only 26, but his 2008 line (.234/.342/.398) and the fact that he basically got benched for Ray Durham are hardly positives in my eyes. I wouldn’t mind taking him, but I just don’t see enough productivity with the bat to bother making him learn a new position. He seems like a younger Juan Pierre with a little more power and a little less speed, and don’t we already have Juan Pierre? Speaking of Ray Durham, though…
Sign Ray Durham for two years, $8 million. The extra year is designed to get this over with quickly, as the falloff from Durham to the next option is steep enough to want to avoid the question. If Durham is done, this is an easy contract to eat. Speaking of which…
This is not actually as terrible of an idea as I would have thought. Though I’d prefer DeWitt at 2B since his bat plays better there than at 3B, there’s a lot fewer options at the hot corner than the keystone. Besides, despite his age, Durham can still hit. With the exception of his dreadful 2007, he hasn’t had a below-average OPS since 1997. Not that it was unfair to wonder if 2007 was the beginning of the end, with how bad he was. But anyone who can bounce back with a .380 OBP as he did this year has to have something going for him. Yeah, his range at 2B isn’t great anymore – though it’s hard not to be an improvement over what we saw with Jeff Kent.
Release Andruw Jones. Ideally, you could get him to agree to a buyout, where he takes 60 cents on the dollar and gets to hit the market again, choosing that ahead of a season in which he bats 125 times as the Dodgers’ fifth outfielder. There’s no place for him on this roster. A year ago, I loved this signing; I was very, very wrong.
Yes, yes, a million times YES! I know and you know that this will never happen, so I’m not even going to look at logically. There’s just so much YES in this idea.
Sign Javier Valentin. He starts 30-35 games against good right-handed pitchers and is a very good pinch-hitter the rest of the time.
Not bad, though the first step before needing a good backup catcher to spell Russell Martin is making sure Joe Torre will actually use a backup catcher. Valentin’s a switch-hitter who’s been pretty decent against righties and pretty awful against lefties in his career, meaning he’ll never be a starter, but could be a pretty good backup for a guy like Turtle who’s never sitting against a lefty anyway. It makes sense, so it’ll never happen.
Re-sign Takashi Saito. Offer him a high-upside deal. It’s not likely there’s much guaranteed money available for him, and he’s one of those “good or unavailable” guys
I’m not entirely convinced that he’s not either A) going back to Japan or B) going to need surgery, because you don’t just tough out a torn elbow ligament. That said, he’s got very little bargaining leverage because of the injury and the fact that he’s not a free agent, so the price should be right. I’d say it’s worth the $3m or so it’d probably cost.
Offer arbitration to Ramirez. I can’t fathom him taking it, and almost no team uses draft picks as well as the Dodgers do.
Done and done. However, while the Dodgers might use their picks correctly, you almost wonder if the McCourts are afraid of having too many picks, because then they’d have to pay them – and isn’t there something monumenally wrong with that?
* Via MLBtraderumors, ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick is reporting that at least four teams are interested in Astros infielder Mark Loretta, and the Dodgers are one of them. The Santa Monica native is 37 and is what he is – an veteran whose decent on-base skills and little power add up to a slightly below-average hitter (dig the career 99 OPS+ and 7 different years with OPS scores between 89 and 95). He can play all four infield spots, and in 2008 was a below-average 2B and an above-average 3B. Considering he only made $2.75 million last year, I don’t have a problem with the Dodger interest – depending on what that interest is. As a starter at 2B or 3B? Oh, hell no. But as a veteran backup who can fill a lot of spots in the infield with a decent bat, there’s certainly value in that, especially considering he’s a righty hitter and James Loney and Blake DeWitt (assuming DeWitt starts somewhere) are lefties. Continuing in that thought, Loretta crushes lefties (.903 OPS in 2008; .390 OBP career) while being markedly weaker against righties, so that really could work. The only thing is, it would almost certainly mean the end of Nomar in Blue, because they’d be filling almost exactly the same role.
* Via BlueNotes, ESPN has a list of the most notable Scott Boras signings. To no one’s surprise, most of these didn’t work out too well for the teams. On the other hand, didn’t we all see the deals for Park and Zito (and the size of A-Rod’s deal) being bad ideas from the very start?
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
Let’s Talk About Shortstop
November 30, 2008 at 12:04 am | In Angel Berroa, Chin-Lung Hu, Edgar Renteria, Jack Wilson, Orlando Cabrera | 7 CommentsFor all the talk flying around about CC Sabathia, Manny Ramirez, and whether we should prefer a winning baseball team or helping children, it’s really looking more and more likely that shortstop is going to be the most important decision the Dodgers have to make this offseason. With Rafael Furcal sounding like he’s all but a memory (likely to the A’s or Giants), Chin-Lung Hu hardly impressive in 2008, and Ivan DeJesus, Jr. not ready to be handed the Opening Day gig, the Dodgers are going to have to find a shortstop somewhere.
Any of this sound familiar? It should, because we did almost this exact same thing back in June. You always hear about how third base has been a black hole for the Blue since Adrian Beltre left; well, shortstop hasn’t really been that much better. So let’s take a spin through the intertubez and check out some of the options…
Jack Wilson. Believe it or not, Jack Wilson’s garnered a mention in about a dozen posts in the history of this blog, because his name seems to constantly pop up in rumors. So by now, you probably now how I feel about him – he’s pretty mediocre. Oh sure, he’s a good fielder, and he’s had one or two decent offensive seasons. That doesn’t exactly make up for the 78 career OPS+, the .312 career OBP, the 6 of 8 seasons with OPS+’s of 77 or under, or his career shortcomings at Dodger Stadium (.558 OPS). He’s a mediocre veteran on the wrong side of 30, and he’s not cheap – $7.25 million due in 2009 with a $500k buyout on his $8.4 million 2010 salary nor is he coming off of a good season, being the 36th ranked SS in VORP (behind Nomar and David Eckstein) when he wasn’t hurt. Basically, I don’t think much of him as a solution, though I’d probably take him if he only cost a relatively small contract, if we can’t do any better. So you can imagine how I feel about the return the Pirates are looking for:
The Dodgers have prospects, too, and, according to a Wednesday report by Yahoo!, want the Pirates to pay “a huge chunk” of Wilson ’s remaining money. Fox Sports reported earlier in the week that the Pirates sought shortstop Chin-Lung Hu, outfielder Delwyn Young and a third player, but Los Angeles pulled away.
The Pirates do not see Hu, a .193 hitter in his first 77 major league games, as anything more than a defensive replacement for Wilson , so the rest of the trade component will be key. By no means will Hu be the centerpiece.
The funny thing about that is, I wouldn’t trade Chin-Lung Hu straight up for Jack Wilson. I realize that Hu didn’t show much in 2008, but at least he’s got hope for improvement. We know exactly what Jack Wilson is, and that’s an overpaid older mediocre shortstop. Hu is at least as good of a defender (probably better), and still has time to show the offensive form that got him so hyped in 2007 – at a fraction of the cost. Now I understand that the Pirates and their fans wouldn’t want to trade their starting shortstop for a player who hit as poorly as Hu did this year – it’s a hard sell. But since I don’t really want Wilson at all, there’s a simple solution: don’t bother trading for Jack Wilson!
In situations like these, it’s always interesting to see what fans of the other team say. At the BuccoBlog, they don’t see much about Hu or Young to get excited about, and while I disagree it’s not hard to see why they’d feel that way. From the comments of that same thread, though, it seems that some of their fans realize that Wilson isn’t all that much to get excited about:
Can Huntington sell Wilson’s valuable defense, contact hitting and agressive baserunning to get back top value or maybe more?
by DITOYeah, all NH has to do is find a team that’s never employed a scout, has no internet connection and no subscription to any magazine that has baseball stats.
by WTM
No wonder they’re coming to Colletti! Just kidding. Sort of. Anyway, since I’d barely give him a job if he came for free, much less at a cost of prospects, let’s just drop the whole “Jack Wilson” thing, can we?
Edgar Renteria… or Orlando Cabrera. Ken Rosenthal (via MLBtraderumors) chimes in on Wilson, but also drops this nugget:
On the free-agent front, they are showing mild interest in free-agent shortstop Edgar Renteria but not Orlando Cabrera, believing that Cabrera would require too long a contract, sources say.
Renteria, as you might remember, had apparently signed a two year, $18 million deal with the Giants last week before reports were proven false. I’d been all set to laugh at San Francisco for that deal, because what the hell does a rebuilding team need with an over-the-hill shortstop who’d cost a draft pick? It makes slightly more sense for the Dodgers, as they’re a contender. Frankly, I’m not exactly sure why Cabrera is expected to get a better deal than Renteria. I’ll grant that Cabrera is the superior fielder, but he’s also a year older, has historically been a weaker offensive player than Renteria, and in a season in which Renteria was killed for having “lost it”, they each ended up with identical 84 OPS+ scores.
Renteria’s not the player he once was, but I don’t think that he’s as cooked as most believe. In 2007 for Atlanta, he had the second best season of his career (.390 OBP!), and he’s now proven twice that while he thrives in warm weather NL cities (Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis), he struggles in cold weather AL cities (Boston, Detroit). Well, guess what: the Dodgers aren’t based out of Minnesota. Besides, while Renteria was – like the rest of the Tigers – absolutely brutal in the first half last year, he definitely turned it around in the second half, putting up a line of .296/.343/.469. He’s hardly the ideal solution, I’ll admit. But if he’s somehow undervalued enough to agree to just a one or two year deal, I’m okay with a line like that, and with a contract that short it’s not blocking DeJesus.
Angel Berroa. Again from Rosenthal:
If Furcal signs elsewhere, the Dodgers’ top in-house candidate to replace him could be Angel Berroa, a capable fielder who batted only .230.
Berroa, who was acquired in a trade with the Kansas City Royals and started for most of the time when Furcal was out, had his $5.5-million option for next season declined. Because Berroa hasn’t accrued enough major league service time to become a free agent, he remains under the Dodgers’ control.
The last day to tender contracts to such players is Dec. 12, and if the Dodgers don’t re-sign him by then, they’ll probably let him go because the collective bargaining agreement forbids clubs to re-sign or tender contracts to players that would cut their salaries from the previous season by more than 20%. Berroa earned $4.75 million in 2008, meaning the Dodgers would be forced to pay him at least $3.8 million if they tender him a contract.
No, no, no. No. Just no. $3.8 million for Angel Berroa? I wouldn’t take him at the major league minimum, even if someone else was paying it. I’m not even going to link to our previous articles about him, because you know it all by now. He’s a complete black hole at the plate and despite Rosenthal’s assertion of him as a “capable” fielder, is average at best. As we’ve said before, if we’re going to have to play a shortstop who can’t hit, it might as well be Hu, the superior fielder who’s at least got a prayer of offensive improvement.
Now at this point you’re probably thinking, “MSTI, you’re against everyone. Who do you want?” Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer to that. My thinking is that either Hu or DeJesus is going to be the man at the position, but that you can’t depend on either in 2009. So you want to get a player on a one-year deal, two at the most, who won’t kill you in 2009, but also won’t cost a ton in prospects to acquire. That counts out Jack Wilson, who the Pirates want a ton for, and Angel Berroa, who would kill us. So as much as I hate myself for saying it, I can’t see a better option right now: Edgar Renteria on a very short term deal.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
You Should Have to Pass a Test to Have a Blog
November 28, 2008 at 9:19 am | In Andy Pettitte, rumors | 7 Comments(Before we get started, fair is fair. We bash Bill Plaschke relentlessly around here, which is only because he’s generally the worst columnist in sports. So on the rare occasion that he actually says something I agree with, I feel obligated to point it out. Check out Plaschke’s response to the Jamie McCourt firestorm, because believe it or not, he’s right on. Due to this, I fully expect that the earth will collide with Mars by the end of the year.)
Usually I don’t address trade rumors from other blogs, because they’re not so much “rumors” as some ridiculous idea thought up by someone with no connection to the team whatsoever. Yet today we’re going to bend that rule a bit for two reasons – one, because the blog we’re about to discuss seems to have some professional writers (radio hosts and ESPN.com writers) and two, because some things are simply so idiotic that they must be addressed. To let things like what you’re about to see go by without comment would
nearly be as much of a mistake on my part as theirs, because if you don’t roll up that newspaper and lightly bat the puppy on the nose while saying “no”, how will they ever learn? Besides, it’s the slowest time of the year, so I’ll take what I can get.
It is with this in mind that I bring you the New York Baseball Digest, also known as “the Worst Baseball Blog ever”. In particular, their post about what the Yankees should do about Andy Pettitte, which is relevant here due to the recent “Pettitte to Dodgers” rumors we’ve heard. After some discussion about whether the Yankees should offer Pettitte arbitration or not, we get to this:
I personally feel the Yankees do not need Pettitte, that he is on the decline and doesn’t have the same bite on his reknowned cut fastball. The Yankees are interested in Sabathia and Lowe because they were dominant #1starters down the stretch, helping their teams into the playoffs. But, Pettitte was the exact opposite of Sabthia and Lowe, was terrible down the stretch, fashioning a 2-7 with a 6.23 ERA in his final 11 starts. So, if you were Brain Cashman, the reason you like Sabtahia and Lowe should be the reason you DON’T LIKE Pettitte – he was terrible when it counted most.
Other than the fact that a supposed media professional should be able to go better than 1-3 on spelling “Sabathia” right (and let’s not even get into “Brain” Cashman), this backs up what I said the other day about signing Pettitte – that’s he’s done, cooked, and not worth anywhere near the money he’ll command. Yankee fans, judging from what I’ve read and heard, seem to agree. He’s at the end of the rope. Which is why this next paragraph will make you throw yourself into the highway:
The Yankees do not want to give Pettitte similar money as last year, knowing he is on the decline and is, at best in 2009, going to be a fifth starter. But, the Yankees need to offer arbitration, and hope that the Dodgers’ need for a veteran starter is too much and they offer Pettitte a two year deal for good money. But, if Pettitte does accept arbitration, seek to trade him and possibly Johnny Damon (because LA could also use a leadoff hitter) to the Dodgers for a young player or two. I like Matt Kemp and James McDonald straight up.
Matt Kemp and James McDonald straight up for Andy Pettitte and Johnny Damon, is it? I bet you do like that. Because who wouldn’t like trading two expensive guys in their mid 30s for two future stars making the minimum that are under 25? No, forget the fact that Matt Kemp is better than Johnny Damon right now (2008 leadoff stats: Kemp .305/.360/.492 vs Damon .305/.376/.468, not to mention Kemp’s rocket arm vs. Damon’s Pierre arm), and forget the fact that McDonald is likely going to be better than Pettitte in 2009, because it’s not like McDonald was dominating the Phillies in the NLCS while Pettitte was imploding down the stretch. None of that matters! Because it’d help the Yankees! Hey, while you’re at it, why not trade Hideki Matsui for Russell Martin? Kei Igawa for Chad Billingsley?
You know, usually I feel that Dodger fans’ particular disgust of Red Sox and Yankee fans is a bit overblown. But why is always the Yankee fans and their blogs that come up with these ridiculous ideas that have no consideration for why the other team would possibly make such a deal?
So we salute you, New York Baseball Digest. Your idiocy has provided me with a morning of entertainment intermingled with occasional thoughts of how we can bombard your server to get your site offline, if only to spare the rest of us from your ridiculous, underthought, poisonous trade “ideas”.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
Is It Too Late to Register www.FireTheMcCourtsNow.com?
November 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm | In not as dumb as you think we are | 6 Comments
I’m hardly the first one to cover this (see: DodgerThoughts, 6-4-2, Sons of Steve Garvey, BaseballThinkFactory, Ken Rosenthal and many more), but I’ll be damned if I’m going to miss out on this shitstorm. Let’s chalk this one up as “another reason having a real job stinks, because they expect you to actually work instead of blog”. For the record, I just scanned those other blogs to get the links and have not yet read their responses, so it’ll be interesting to see how similar to them it ends up.
As you’ve no doubt heard by now, Jamie McCourt said one of the dumbest things in American history the other day. Let’s do this with a fervor usually reserved only for Bill Plaschke! I don’t even usually swear that much when I write here, but this one’s got some special sauce involved…
Would Dodgers fans react negatively if the team were to pay big money to free agents when the nation’s economy is in sharp decline and many Americans are losing their jobs?
That was the question posed by Dodgers President Jamie McCourt as she made an appearance with her husband, team owner Frank McCourt, Tuesday at an event where it was announced the club’s charitable foundation would help build 42 youth fields around Southern California.
Anywhere, Los Angeles. Two recently laid-off Angelenos try to distract themselves from their inability to find a job by discussing their favorite pastime, Dodger baseball.
“Steve, I think I’m going to lose my house. I won’t be able to send my kids to college. But at least I still have baseball to look forward to.”
“Tom, I feel your pain, I can’t find a job either. Hey, I hear the Dodgers might sign CC Sabathia. How great of a rotation would CC/Billingsley/Kershaw/Kuroda be? Unstoppable!”
“What! How could they do that! I can’t find work, and they’re going to give Sabathia all that money! I’m offended by that! Boooo!”
“Tom, what the hell are you talking about? Sabathia’s getting his money no matter where he signs. Ticket prices are going to be high no matter what, and it’s not like we’re getting a refund if CC doesn’t get that salary from the Blue, so shouldn’t we at least want to see our team win while we’re down in the dumps?”
“You’re right, Steve. I’m being ridiculous. Because while the economy sucks, I’m not a fucking moron and realize that a billion-dollar baseball team giving a hundred million dollars to a great player will have absolutely no impact on my life other than to make me happy to see them win.”
“If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you?” Jamie McCourt asked in an interview at the Evergreen Recreation Center in East Los Angeles. “That’s what we’re trying to figure out. We’re really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We’re really trying to understand, would they rather have the 50 fields?”
Do you ever read something and you want to say three sentences at once in reply, but you have to force your brain to relax and just do one at a time so it’ll make sense? Because right now I’m not sure which thought is trying to push it’s way out of my head first: the idea that paying for 50 baseball fields is somehow costing enough that a top free agent is no longer affordable (seriously, how much did these fields cost? Is the grass made out of emeralds? Do the kids get Hall of Famers to coach every position) or the idea that Jamie McCourt basically just said “if you want the Dodgers to get good, though expensive, players, then you’re a monster who hates children.” Because, you know, when the Dodgers went out and got Manny and sold about ten billion $300 replica jerseys and fake dreadlocks and playoff tickets, all of you were bad people for supporting that expensive player and giving all that money to the McCourts.
You want to see it through “the eyes of the fans”? Guess what: we’re all for kids. Build them fields. Be a good citizen of the community. Build the next generation of baseball fans, because that’s how this business is going to sustain itself – and who knows how many kids we’ve already lost through 9pm EST World Series starts and the like. But there is no one – no one – who’s going to say “I’d rather the Dodgers miss the playoffs, in order for some kids to have a nice field to play on.” I’m not pretending that a baseball team winning is more important than supporting the youth of the America – it’s not, let’s keep our priorities straight – but do NOT insult our intelligence by suggesting that one has anything to do with the other.
Once again, just in case I wasn’t clear. This is not an either/or proposition! I salute you for building these fields, I really do. You’ve probably made a difference in the lives of some kids, and that’s commendable. But the idea that the “charitable donations” budget and the “baseball operations” budget is one and the same is ludicrous. And again, let’s not forget that the cost of 50 youth baseball fields maybe covers Manny’s per diem.
The Dodgers recently made a two-year, $45-million offer to slugger Manny Ramirez that they later withdrew, and the McCourts seemed to be hedging against lavish spending during a time of such great economic uncertainty.
Not that anyone ever expected Manny to accept this offer in the first place, but we all know how poor the economy is right now, and I have no problem with fidiuciary responsibility; no one is suggesting or asking that we become the West Coast Yankees.
Jamie McCourt said the fact that the majority of contracts were guaranteed was a significant issue.
“I think, oddly enough, maybe if things weren’t guaranteed, then we could pay for it,” she said. “If people can’t play anymore, it’s like, ‘Oh well, see ya.’ Different story. Whatever money they are guaranteed could be money that we could otherwise have given to community.”
Oh dear God. You’re complaining about guaranteed contracts? Welcome to the last 30 years. Hey, you know what else is an issue? Free agency! Why can’t we bring back the reserve clause and tie players to their original teams forever? That’d be great for us poor, poor owners! Damn you, Curt Flood!
As for the second part of that quote… look, I know Jamie McCourt is a smart woman with her fancy degrees and all, but I am actually getting offended with how stupid she thinks baseball fans are. Are you really, truly, honestly suggesting that if contracts weren’t guaranteed, then underperforming players would be cut loose and their salary given to the community? Would you really be giving the $18 million or so due Andruw Jones to needy families? Or are you saying that you can’t afford to give more to charity because your cash is all tied up in expensive players? We’ve said pretty much everything bad you can say about Juan Pierre around here, but “takes food out of the mouths of orphans” isn’t exactly a level we’ve made it to yet.
Frank McCourt said that while he and his wife contribute money out of their own pockets to the Dodgers’ charitable causes, the team and its foundation are separate entities and the funds to pay for the fields won’t be taken out of the team’s operating budget. But he, too, said the Dodgers had to re-examine their priorities.
Frank, I think you may want to have a chat with the missus, because she seems to think otherwise. I think that chat should maybe start with, “hey. could you keep your fat mouth shut when you have no idea what you’re talking about?”
Later in the article, McCourt was asked about the absurd spring training prices, while Dylan Hernandez astutely points out McCourt’s error:
Because of the economy, Frank McCourt was asked, had the Dodgers overpriced the tickets for spring training games at their new facility in Glendale, Ariz.?
He said no, adding that only a small percentage of tickets cost $90. (Actually, they can cost as much as $125 for “premium” games.) He called the other seats, which range from $18 to $30 for “regular” games and $20 to $35 for “premium” games, “very affordable.”
“And keep in mind,” Frank added, “there’s also going to be the berm seating at the ballpark,” referring to tickets to sit in the grass behind the outfield fences, which will cost $8 or $10, depending on the game.
I love spring training. Love it. Well, loved it, now that it’s moving from Vero to Arizona, but that’s another story entirely. But even I wouldn’t pay $35 to see Luis Maza, Pablo Ozuna, and BJ LaMura amble around the field. If the economy is so bad that you’re choosing between free agents and children, Frank, then why are meaningless practice games so much?
Oh, right. The scented towels.
You know what, I’ve tried. I really have. I’ve been a Dodger fan for two decades and I can’t imagine anything happening that would change that. But I just cannot stomach any more of these woe-is-me stories from millionaires. McCourt has made some immense mistakes since taking over, from how much money he had to borrow to buy the team to the ridiculous way he caved to Plashke in prematurely firing Paul DePodesta. We’re starting to see real repercussions on the field of play due to these new penny-pinching ways, and unfortunately, this points to a much larger issue. Look, I don’t need to see you outspend the Yankees. But these are the Los Angeles Dodgers we’re talking about here. This is a huge market, and one that annually is at or near the top of the league in attendance. We shouldn’t be pinching pennies. We shouldn’t have had to throw in Carlos Santana just so you could avoid paying the $2 million left on Casey Blake’s deal, and we shouldn’t even be speaking to the Pirates about Jack fucking Wilson, much less demanding the Pirates eat most of his salary (to clarify here, I’m not saying it’s not a bonus if we have to pay him less, because it is; it just reeks of “we’ll only do this trade if it doesn’t cost us anything” more than it does a good baseball deal. I wouldn’t do Wilson for Hu straight up, much less Wilson for Hu, Young, and another player.)
I get it. The economy is lousy for everyone, and due to that handing out $160 million or so to Sabathia might not be the most prudent course of action. That’s reasonable, and if that’s the case, so be it. We’d understand. Or at least we’d accept it a whole hell of a lot better than we would be treated like idiots who can’t smell what a load of horsecrap “free agents OR KIDS!” is.
I am, for the moment, truly disgusted. Happy Thanksgiving.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
I Guess I’ve Got No Choice
November 25, 2008 at 11:01 pm | In Andy Pettitte, Jack Wilson, Mike Lowell, T.J. Simers, Trevor Hoffman, rumors | 11 CommentsSweet merciful crap! The rumors! My god, the rumors. You know, usually I look forward to this time of year so much, because what’s more fun than the Hot Stove League? Wondering what big name will don the Dodger blue for the first time, trying to figure out how all the puzzle pieces will fit together for the next year. It’s wonderful.
Until the 400th time you hear some two-bit reporter come up with a non-sourced rumor that only benefits his hometown team and somehow gains legs, that is. I’ve heard some people complain that the Dodgers have somehow been dragging their feet in not making any moves yet, but I just don’t see it. We all know that the big-time free agents always wait as long as possible before signing, and other than that the only moves have really been the Giants signing Jeremy Affeldt and the Marlins making a few salary dumps.
Anyway, things have really been coming to a head the last few days, despite the fact that we all know nothing is going to happen until at least the December 1 arbitration deadline and likely not until the December 8 winter meetings, so I figure it’s time to check into some of these.
* Good god, Jack Wilson again? Via MLBtraderumors, FOXsports.com’s Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the Dodgers are interested in trading for Pirates SS Jack Wilson, but that the price (Chin-Lung Hu, Delwyn Young, and a third player) was deemed too high. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard Wilson rumors floating around, and at least this is a little more palatable than when we’d heard Matt Kemp was involved over the summer. But come on, three players for Jack Wilson? He’s known to be a good defender and a below-average bat. Which sounds like, oh, I don’t know… Chin-Lung Hu? I don’t think that Hu’s going to get a shot to be the Opening Day shortstop, but if we’re going to have a good field/no hit guy there, I think I’d rather the guy who’s not getting paid $7.25 million in 2009, is especially atrocious in Dodger Stadium (.558 OPS), and is costing several young players to acquire. At least Hu’s got some upside. PASS.
* Wait, Andy Pettitte? Also from Ken Rosenthal, Andy Pettitte has apparently spoken with Joe Torre about a reunion in Los Angeles. If true, this is a tough call. On one hand, he’ll be 37 next year, is coming off the worst year of his career (plus a 5.35 ERA in the second half) and after having made $16 million in each of the last three years, is unlikely to want to take much of a pay cut. On the other hand… actually, I don’t think there is another hand. I wouldn’t mind giving him a shot at a more reasonable price, but if he wants $16 million or anything close to it? I’d rather have Eric Stults. Somehow I feel Torre would disagree with me. PASS.
* Okay, Ken, I see you, you can stop making a scene. Clearly just trying to get my attention, Rosenthal seems to have the Dodgers in on just about everyone, so let’s finish with him right here. He’s also suggesting that the Dodgers A) should sign Trevor Hoffman and B) could be interested in acquiring Mike Lowell. Though I disagree that Jonathan Broxton needs to be “protected” or somehow can’t be trusted, I’m not against signing Hoffman at the right price. He might be 41, but he still bested his career WHIP last year. If the price is right? Why not. As for Lowell, he’s 35, injured, and owed $25 million. Just because he’s old, busted, expensive and a Red Sox doesn’t mean that he has to end up with the Dodgers. Oh… right. Of course it does. OKAY and PASS.
* I agree with T.J. Simers?! I hate it when this happens, but at least this time it’s just joining together to acknowledge that Bill Plaschke is awful.
I GO away and Plaschke immediately makes the case again not to bring back Manny Ramirez, while suggesting the Dodgers trade for Jake Peavy, Adrian Beltre and “count on the kids.”
Sounds like I’m not the only one in need of some time off.
* Come on Giants! I know the “Edgar Renteria signs with Giants” rumors were proven false (so far), but a man can still have a rooting interest. What could be better than your hated rival, supposedly in a rebuilding stage, committing $18 million and a draft pick to sign an over-the-hill shortstop? Renteria to the Giants! Feel the holiday spirit – if you believe in it hard enough, it can happen!
* And those other guys? Right, CC, Manny, and Furcal. Look, I think we all know the deal with these three. CC’s got an enormous offer on the table from the Yankees, but hasn’t accepted it yet. Manny got an expensive but short-term offer from the Dodgers, which was quickly rejected while Scott Boras tries to get someone to literally sign their souls over to him. Furcal… well, don’t keep your hopes up. By the time you read this, he might have signed with the Giants or A’s, but more likely he’s not going anywhere for a few weeks. Unfortunately, it does seem that where he does end up, it won’t be in Los Angeles – not when he’s (apparently) receiving four year offers. After all the injuries we watched him suffer through in his three year deal, don’t expect the Dodgers to beat that this time.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
MSTI.com’s 2008 in Review: Manager
November 22, 2008 at 11:19 am | In 2008 in review, Joe Torre | 14 CommentsWe’ve made it! This is the last 2008 review.
Uh oh. This is the last 2008 review. Now I’ll be forced to delve into the endless Manny/Sabathia/Furcal etc. rumors that are basically the same lies repeated over and over, won’t I?
Joe Torre (C-)
I suppose the absolute best thing I can say about Joe Torre is, “he’s not Grady Little”. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly high praise. When Joe came out to the Left Coast last year, we were told that we could expect his expertise would be of immediate help in two areas: that after years in New York, his calming influence would help a clubhouse torn apart by the “old vs. young” fracture, and that damn it, anyone who led a team to the playoffs 12 years in a row just knows how to win - whatever that means.
Now as to the first point, we did hear a whole hell of a lot less about clubhouse dischord this season, and I don’t deny Torre his due credit for that. Keeping the clubhouse calm has always been a strength of his, and that’s all well and good. The problem I have with that, however, is that I’ve never felt the clubhouse issues were as bad as the local papers made them out to be. Obviously, stories of teammates that have issues with each other make for good copy, but I think the real reasons that we didn’t have such issues this year is that the elderly combatants of 2007 were either gone (Luis Gonzalez) or injured and/or ineffective (Jeff Kent), while young players like Andre Ethier were really stepping it up. How could you complain about a productive young player acting a certain way when you’re hitting .240 or on the DL yourself? It just doesn’t seem like this was ever nearly as large an issue as it’s been portrayed.
To the second point, the playoff streak Torre carries is all but meaningless to me. I can’t even explain how many ridiculous stories in the media were floating around about how Joe Torre was such a huge success for coming to LA and “showing the young Dodgers how to win”, while the Yankees missing the playoffs for the first time since 1942 was somehow proof that Torre was the man with the magic touch. The idiocy of such stories is mind-blowing to me – the Yankees were a better team in 2008 than were the Dodgers, and it’s not really even close. They won 5 more games despite playing in what was quite possibly the best division in the history of the sport and having to suffer through far more damaging injuries to the starting rotation. I’m not suggesting that Joe Torre did a terrible job (his grade is more due to how highly he was touted coming in), but let’s not forget that in 14 seasons as a manager before heading to the Yankees, he made the playoffs once and never won 90 games. Suddenly he’s a great manager once he puts on the pinstripes? No, I’d say it’s much more due to having the best collection of talent in the game, not to mention how lousy the entire division was for much of that time (remember, the Red Sox didn’t become the Red Sox until about 2003). In his first year in LA, as we’ve said many times, the division title he won owes an enormous debt to the complete ineptitude of the rest of the NL West.
I don’t mean to imply that I’m completely anti-Torre; not at all. The outfield situation alone had the potential to be a disaster of epic proportions, and that’s even before Manny showed up. How do you juggle a foursome of two talented young players, one expensive mediocre veteran, and one Hindenberg – both in terms of size and how badly he flamed out? It didn’t always work out smoothly (early in the year we had our disappointments about the lack of playing time at various points for both Kemp and Ethier) but when Kemp and Ethier end up first and fourth, respectively, in at-bats for the team I can’t really complain all that much about it. I especially give him credit for eventually realizing that Juan Pierre just was not one of the three best outfielders and finally showing him the bench without it becoming a team-consuming issue, though I imagine much of that is due to Pierre being a professional (mostly) about it.
In addition, we were all worried about what would happen once Torre got his hands on talented young relievers like Jonathan Broxton, given his propensity for running relievers into the ground in New York (which finally caught up to former Yankee Scott Proctor this year). While we have some pretty big issues with his bullpen usage, overuse wasn’t really a big problem. No full-time reliever went over 71.1 IP (Wade) or 71 games (Beimel), and that’s not that bad. There were definitely things to like about Joe Torre in 2008.
But here’s what else we got with that. We had to have Mark Sweeney wasting a spot on the bench all year long. Once Furcal was out injured, we had to have Pierre leading off every single day despite overwhelming evidence that it was hurting the team. We had the bizarre usage of young ace Chad Billingsley in his first outing, which ruined his April – and fortunately nothing more serious than that. We had Jeff Kent continually slotted into the cleanup spot despite it being completely obvious he couldn’t handle it anymore. We had the abuse of Russell Martin and insane usage of him at third base on his “days off”, and we had Andy LaRoche never getting a chance to play despite the clear need for him. Possibly most infuriating of all, there was the insistence on using the lousiest pitchers in the bullpen in the toughest game situations.
Finally, we had the most face-blowing quote of the entire year:
“I tried to reason who was going to give me the better at-bat – Berroa or Loney,” Torre said.
It took me months of intensive therapy to get over that one, friends.
All in all, Joe Torre wasn’t terrible. It’s just that with all the glowing lights and heavenly music that accompanied him, “wasn’t terrible” isn’t exactly what we were hoping for.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
MSTI.com’s 2008 in Review: General Manager
November 20, 2008 at 7:58 pm | In 2008 in review, Ned Colletti | 8 CommentsAlmost there! I was going to do Ned Colletti and Joe Torre together as one “management” post, but what the hell – might as well drag this death march out as long as we can. Today! Colletti! Soon! Torre!
Ned Colletti (D)
Before we get into Colletti, let’s be clear: this is only for work he’s done between the end of the 2007 season and the end of the 2008 season. Unfortunately, this means no ragging on him in this space for Juan Pierre… probably. Ned made 5 moves that had a huge impact on the club in that time:
1) Signing Andruw Jones. Fail on an asbolutely epic level. That said, I can’t kill Colletti as much as you’d think – partially because absolutely no one saw Jones being as pathetic as he was… and partially because even we liked the signing at the time.
2) Signing Hiroki Kuroda. This worked out pretty well, but in the same sense that I won’t destroy him for Jones, I can’t really give him a huge amount of credit on Kuroda. I have a pretty hard time believing that Colletti was spending a lot of time in Japan in 2007 watching Kuroda pitch. From what I read, this one was almost entirely Logan White.
3) Trading for Angel Berroa. Look, I know the team was in a bad situation at shortstop, but come on. Angel Berroa? We were aghast at the move from the second it came down, and Berroa – despite the inane protestations of the local media – was predictably awful. I don’t care how bad things were at shortstop; there’s always a better option than Angel Berroa. Always.
4) Trading for Casey Blake. I won’t go through this yet again, because if you’re a regular reader you know how against this we were – as recently as, oh, Wednesday. Suffice to say, this deal was horrifying all around.
5) Trading for Manny Ramirez. I don’t deny how well this deal worked out. We got two of the most productive hitting months in history and we didn’t even have to pay the man. But come on. Are we really going to say this was some masterstroke of a deal in which Colletti hoodwinked Theo Epstein? Everyone on the planet knew that Manny simply had to go, and between his no-trade clause and teams being out of contention, it’s not like there was a huge market that Colletti had to compete against.
Now, I’m not going to say that Ned didn’t do anything right this year, not when we can still look at the roster and see Russell Martin, Matt Kemp, James Loney, Clayton Kershaw, Andre Ethier, Jonathan Broxton, Chad Billingsley, and James McDonald. I can only imagine the sheer number of trade offers the front office has recieved for these kids, and I commend Colletti for standing strong and keeping the young prospects right where they belong. But more often than not, we saw bad decisions rather than good coming down from the front office.
…like signing a backup catcher who can’t throw, much less hit. Or the shameful way in which our top infield power prospect, Andy LaRoche, was neglected (both by being stuck in AAA and on the LA bench) before he was traded. Or sending down Blake DeWitt when Nomar first came back off the DL, leaving no backup third baseman (other than Russell Martin) behind one of the most notoriously fragile players in the game. Or the insistence on claiming a never-was utility infielder, Pablo Ozuna, and then placing him on the playoff roster. Or allowing the Corpse of Mark Sweeney to take up space on the bench all year despite obviously superior options both at AAA and the local Little League. Or the bizarre bullpen roster decisions, like promoting Brian Falkeborg and Tanyon Sturtze. Now I understand that those bottom-of-the-roster decisions may have been influenced by Joe Torre, but you’re the general manager, Ned. At some point, you’ve got to put your foot down and say, “Look, it’s adorable how much you like Tanyon Sturtze, but I’d much rather have ballplayers who can still play the goddamn game.”
Oh – and that time you traded one of the top catching prospects in baseball for CASEY FUCKING BLAKE. Have I brought that up yet?
Really, in the final accounting, you need to ask yourself this question: Is there any way that Ned Colletti still has his job if both of the following two improbable conditions didn’t apply: 1) A once-in-a-lifetime situation where a Hall of Fame slugger is dropped into your lap, and 2) a division that featured zero teams that won more than 84 games. If Manny doesn’t miraculously appear, the Dodgers finish under .500. If the Dodgers play in any other division, they finish at least 6 games out (and that’s without even taking into account that in any other division, they wouldn’t have been able to play patsies like San Diego, San Francisco, and Colorado so often). And I truly believe that if the Blue had finished under .500 and/or been unable to make the playoffs, Frank McCourt would have shown Colletti the door. I understand that all the injuries weren’t his fault, but still, if you’re almost certainly being fired if not for the confluence of two historically unlikely events, I have a hard time saying you’ve done a good job.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
It’s Time For a Little Math Lesson
November 19, 2008 at 4:50 pm | In C.C. Sabathia, Carlos Santana, Casey Blake | 11 CommentsThis isn’t even going to be the kind of math lesson you think it is. This isn’t going to be about years or dollars, although believe me, that’s a kind of math we’re going to be dealing with a lot. No, today, we’re going to deal with the simple lessons of “greater than or equal to”.
Last July, the Brewers gave up highly-touted minor league slugger Matt LaPorta and three lesser prospects in order to acquire one of the three best pitchers in baseball, CC Sabathia.
Last July, the Dodgers gave up breakout star minor league catcher Carlos Santana and minor league pitcher Jonathan Meloan to acquire one of the most thoroughly mediocre third basemen in baseball, Casey Blake.
Here’s where the math comes in.
We can eliminate these two variables: origin (Sabathia and Blake each came from Cleveland, and x=x) and contract (Sabathia and Blake were each free agents at the end of 2008; again, x=x). Otherwise, CC Sabathia > Casey Blake. This much is obvious. Just think of there being 400 “greater than” arrows in that equation and all of them being the size of the moon, for proper perspective. Not only is a top starter almost always more valuable than a decent third baseman, but Sabathia is way better at his job than Blake is at his. Besides, Sabathia might be nearly as dangerous of a hitter.
So by that logic, the value of the players moved for the immensely more valuable Sabathia should dwarf what was given up for Blake, right?
Oh dear God:
Baseball America’s Top 10 Indians prospects:
1. Carlos Santana, c
2. Matt LaPorta, of
Somehow the Dodgers acquired the far inferior Indians player, yet gave up the more valuable player. Oh yeah. Because that makes sense. Let’s not even get into the idea that Meloan would also arguably be as or more valuable than the rest of the players Milwaukee sent to Cleveland if the Dodgers hadn’t tried to convert him into a starter this year; the simple fact is, the Dodgers traded more for less than another team had to. And isn’t that the way it always is? Dioner Navarro for Mark Hendrickson. Edwin Jackson for Danys Baez and Lance Carter. All trades in which the Dodgers sent away much more than was received.
I hope you don’t get tired of this one, friends. “Santana for Blake” is going right up there with “Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields” in the annals of Dodger infamy.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
MSTI.com’s 2008 in Review: Secondary Relievers
November 18, 2008 at 6:26 pm | In 2008 in review, Brian Falkenborg, James McDonald, Jason Schmidt, Scott Elbert, Tanyon Sturtze, Yhency Brazoban | 4 CommentsYeesh. This is the review I was dreading, partially because there’s only so much you can write about guys who threw about six innings for the club this year, but partially because it’s a little worrisome to think that our readers might not really want to read an entire post on the dregs of the bullpen. That said, if we didn’t do it this way, we’d have had 11 relievers all bunched together in one post. On we go! No grades here, because they all fall under the “incomplete” heading.
Brian Falkenborg
(2-2, 6.17 ERA, 1.286 WHIP)
Nothing sums up “Brian Falkenborg” more than the fact that when I did an AP image search for him, of the first eight results I got, one was the picture you see in the card, one was a shot of him fist bumping his San Diego catcher… and six were pictures that he wasn’t even in, but were tagged with his name because they were of other teams celebrating with a caption that inevitably ended “…with the game-winning hit off reliever Brian Falkenborg.”
Actually, for a guy who only pitched 11.2 innings (and somehow picked up 4 decisions in that time) in his second go-round in LA, we sure did talk about him a lot. To be fair, most of our problems with the Brian Falkenborg era weren’t with Falkenborg himself; we all know he’s just not very good, and it came as a surprise to no one that when he got a chance he didn’t really do much to change our minds. No, our problems were mostly with Ned Colletti and Joe Torre for even allowing Falkenborg to be on the roster in the first place. I mean, this is the very first mention of Falkenborg I could find on this blog:
On the other hand, they called up Brian Falkenborg, who already failed in one try with the Dodgers (7.53 ERA in 14.3 innings back in 2004) and has never really had any success in the bigs (5.74 ERA in parts of 5 seasons), while bypassing Mike Koplove, who’s got 222 MLB games of 120 ERA+ work under his belt. I’m sure that makes sense somehow… somewhere… in some reality.
From day one, I didn’t see why he was here, and according to the second post he shows up in (”But thanks to the bullpen blowing his lead tonight – and yes, Brian Falkenborg, even though two of those three runs got charged to Kershaw, it was you who gave up that three run bomb – Kershaw has now gone almost 11 months since his last professional win,”) it’s clear that his already lousy statistics should have been even worse.
I don’t really mean to make this all quotes from previous posts, but they really serve to illustrate the failure of the decision-making regarding Falkenborg all too well, because here’s the third post he was in:
Bringing in the guy who’s somewhere around 16th on the organizational pitching depth chart into a high-pressure situation despite having so many better options around. Brian Falkenborg? Really? The guy who’s been a failure at every MLB stop in his career, with a 5.74 ERA in parts of 5 seasons for 4 teams entering this year? The guy who gave up a 3 run homer in his 5 pitches his last time out? The guy who I said never should have been called up in the first place?
To put it as simply as possible, Joe Torre thought Brian Falkenborg was a better option to prevent the tying run from scoring than Joe Beimel. Falkenborg’s ERA of 3.60 in triple A was three and a half times higher than Beimel’s been able to do in the big leagues – yet somehow, he’s the superior choice here. To the surprise of absolutely no one except for Joe Torre (hell, I bet even Mrs. Falkenborg was covering her eyes when Joe walked out to the mound and raised his right arm), Falkenborg self-immolated on the mound. Sure, he got Aurilia to strike out, but then he gave up a game-tying single to Fred Lewis, walked Ray Durham, and then – because just letting them tie wasn’t good enough – allowed Randy Winn to drive in the go-ahead run.
You can blame Falkenborg here for not getting the job done. But really, there’s no way he ought to have been placed in that situation anyway. He’s the last man on the staff. He ought to be pulling mop-up duty, at best. How he gets put into a high-pressure situation that ultimately decided the game is completely beyond me.
And it’s that last paragraph there really shows the problem here. It’s not Falkenborg failing to get the job done that’s the problem here; he’s a fringe major leaguer at best precisely because he doesn’t get the job done. The problem is that instead of using him as the last man out of the pen or as a mop-up guy, Joe Torre inexplicably kept inserting him into high-pressure situations, in which no one should have expected good results. The best part was, this kept happening for as long as Falkenborg was here (this post from weeks after the previous one):
What you don’t do is bring in veteran retread Brian Falkenborg ahead of all of these guys. Can we finally give up on the ”Falkenborg is a good pitcher” train that some people seem to be on? We’ve been pretty unhappy with him since day one (see here and here) and we’ve actually gotten some grief over it, and I just can’t understand why. Is it his 4.91 ERA coming into the game (that’s now 5.56 after it, by the way)? Is it his history of being unable to stick at the major league level? Even if you can justify him being on the team ahead of some guys we have in the minors (that’s a tough sell for me), I don’t see how anyone can say he’s any better than the last man out of the pen. Look, if we get to the 14th inning and it’s him or letting Russell Martin take the mound, that’s fine – if he gets hammered, what else could you have done? But there’s just no reason you let him pitch before every single other one of your rested and effective pitchers.
To no one’s surprise but Joe Torre’s, Falkenborg let the team down by allowing three of the four men he faced to reach base. Yeah, Joe Beimel hit Rick Ankiel to force the run in, and that was a pretty terrible job by Beimel (although he did rebound to get the next two outs with no further damage). But it’s a situation that never should have happened in the first place.
I suppose this is really more of a discussion for Torre’s review, and we’ll get there. Anyway, the point remains: Brian Falkenborg is a lousy pitcher, and lousy pitchers don’t magically improve when put into high pressure situations. Lousy pitchers DO get DFA’d, as Falkenborg eventually was. Let’s hope that after 2004 and 2008, we don’t have to suffer through this a third time in 2012.
James McDonald
(0-0, 0.00 ERA, 1.000 WHIP)
Now we’re talking! After about 1000 words on Brian Falkenborg, it’s time for some real talent, and James McDonald has more than a little of it. Quite a 12 months for Mr. McDonald, I’d say. It was just about this time last year that he was being named the 2007 Dodgers Minor League Pitcher of the Year, and he spent most of 2008 excelling at AA and AAA, in between having to see his name in constant trade rumors for CC Sabathia, among others.
So after that, coming up to get a quick cup of coffee is a pretty good cap to the year of the local product from Long Beach, right? All the better that it was a positive experience, notching six scoreless innings over four games. Hooray! A good end to a good year. Work hard in the winter, James, and maybe we’ll let you compete for a spot next spring.
Wait, what? We put him on the NLCS roster? And brought him in against the deadly lineup of the Phillies in the Little League field known as Citizens Bank Park? With the bases loaded? Against Pat Burrell? Well, geez, Joe. What an unfair thing to ask the kid to do. He’s going to get abused, and now you’ve ruined a prospect for good. THANKS, JOE. Except…
One amazingly huge bright point, if not so much for this postseason as for next year and beyond: James McDonald. The kid – he’s still only 23, although Clayton Kershaw has skewed our perception of “kid” a little – was a last-minute addition to the playoff roster after getting all of six September innings in four games. Almost exclusively a starter in the minors, even his relief appearances for the Dodgers came with him entering the game at the start of an inning. But tonight, having not pitched in two weeks, he comes in as the fourth pitcher of the third inning of NLCS Game 2… with the bases loaded, Phillies fans going nuts, and slugger Burrell at the plate in Philly’s bandbox park. Recipe for disaster, right? But no! McDonald strikes out Burrell, and proceeds to go three more scoreless innings, striking out four others and giving up just two hits. What an absolutely phenomenal effort by this kid, and he’s really thrown his hat into the ring for a starting rotation gig next year – he’s unscored upon in 8.1 MLB innings.
Really, I hate to base anything on three innings, but that performance was one of the most impressive things I’ve seen all year. Talk about being set up for failure; if he’d given up a grand slam, who could have blamed him? Yet not only did he get out of that situation, he went three more scoreless innings in an unbelievable pressure situation in the hardest pitching park around. Can’t say enough about the kid – that was phenomenal.
I think there’s a bit of a misconception about McDonald among Dodger fans, simply because we haven’t been hearing about him as long as we have Clayton Kershaw. I’m not suggesting that McDonald is as good as Kershaw is, but we tend to forget that McDonald is 4 years older than Kershaw is. It’s not time to let him cool his heels in AAA next year, it’s time to see what the kid’s got. Judging by what we saw in October, I’d say he’s got plenty.
Scott Elbert
(0-1, 12.00 ERA, 2.167 WHIP)
I tell you what, after the procession of veteran stiffs like Falkenborg, Sturtze, and the disappearance of Jason Schmidt, I just cannot get enough young talented pitchers. Now, Scott Elbert’s stat line up there looks pretty rotten, but you’ve got to keep two things in mind before judging it. First of all, when you only get into ten games, having one of those be a “giving up 4 runs while getting 0 outs” debacle as happened to him on Sept. 17 in Pittsburgh is really going to inflate those stats. There was a lot of good in there as well – I’ll take a 22-year-old lefty who strikes out 8 in 6 innings any day.
The second reason to cut Elbert a break here is that he’s pitched so little over the last two years. A shoulder injury cut short his 2007 campaign after just three games, and missing your entire age-20 season isn’t exactly the way to get the experience you need. Despite all that, the former starter came back as a reliever to dominate AA-ball in 2008 (2.40 ERA, 1.02 WHIP) and get called up to the Blue.
After missing so much time and having a bit of a rocky start to his MLB career, I wouldn’t be completely surprised to see Elbert start out in AAA Las V.. uh.. Albuquerque next year to get some more innings in. By the way, thanks guys. Don’t get me wrong, I love having a Simpsons joke as the AAA team, but having to spell Albuquerque instead of Las Vegas every time? Killer.
Yhency Brazoban
(0-0, 6.00 ERA, 2.333 WHIP)
Hey, anyone remember Yhency Brazoban? Last seen fighting with Andruw Jones over the last Big Mac? Remember that time he was our closer of the future and set a Dodgers rookie record for saves (since broken by Takashi Saito)? No? With how little we’ve seen of him over the last three years, it’s really easy to forget just how long he’s been on this team. What’s more shocking? That he was aquired so long ago that it was to bring Jeff Weaver to town to start his Dodger career, or that it was the deal that sent Kevin Brown east? How’s about this: Brazoban made his major league debut against Pittsburgh on August 5, 2004. Other players in Dodger blue that day? Adrian Beltre, Shawn Green, David Ross, and Jose Hernandez.
The thing about Brazoban is… he hasn’t been any good since those last two months of 2004. The 2.48 ERA in 32.2 innings, I liked. The 5.33 ERA in 74 games the next year? Not so much, and 21 saves be damned. Sure, he’s managed to pitch in each of the last five years, but I’m hardly impressed by the 5, 4, and 2 games he’s thrown in the last three years either, sandwiched around injuries and fatness. You want 2008? He made it into 10 AAA games and put up a 2.40. “Not bad,” you say. Yeah. That’s a 2.40 WHIP, which is brutally awful, and helped him compile that 10.80 ERA.
He’s arbitration eligible this year. Sounds like a prime candidate for non-tendering to me. Ghame over!
Tanyon Sturtze
(0-0, 0.00 ERA, 0.857 WHIP)
See that face Tanyon Sturtze is making over there in his picture? Yeah, that’s about the face I made every time I had to think about Tanyon Sturtze as a Dodger this year. It’s the kind of face that roughly says ”Oh no, I just ate Taco Bell, why did I eat Taco Bell, I know better than to eat Taco Bell, where’sabathroom where’sabathroom where’sabathroom.” That’s right, Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness: unafraid to make the occasional poop joke since 2007. I don’t want to put undue importance on a guy who pitched all of 2.2 innings this year, but just like with Falkenborg, it was an example of bizarre roster decisions by the management group. Let’s see…
Did we like seeing Sturtze come up?
Sturtze is 37 years old, and he actually had to start his 2008 at Jacksonville this year, which is an experience I can’t even imagine for a non-rehabbing pitcher of that age. Look, we all know why he’s here; he’s another one of Joe Torre’s unexplained relief pitcher mancrushes, despite the fact that he was never even very good for the Yankees. In his 3 seasons in New York (2004-06), he was reliably below average, posting ERA’s of 5.47, 4.73, and finally 7.59 in 18 games in 2006 before being shown the door. Sturtze hasn’t been even league average since 2001, and suffered through a brutal 4-18 campaign for the 2002 Devil Rays. Last year, he didn’t even get to taste the majors. He somehow spent time at four different levels of the Atlanta system and put up a glowing 9.53 ERA. He’s at least been better than that this year with a 4.70 ERA at Jacksonville and a 4.13 at Las Vegas, but it’s like that’s very good either. Why him to be the 42nd Dodger we see this year rather than, say, Matt Riley, who’s outperforming him in AAA by a good margin? Why not Mike Myers, who had a 166 ERA+ in 55 games for the Yankees last year and is outperforming Sturtze in the minors this year?
It seems we did not. Did we like seeing Sturtze stick over Stults?
That said, I have to ask: why was Stults sent down rather than Tanyon Sturtze? Neither had gotten into a game since they were recalled on the same day last week – Sturtze, in fact, still hasn’t pitched in the bigs since 2006. Stults has been outperforming Sturtze in the minors this season, but that’s almost irrelevant since Stults has had major league success this season – have we already forgotten his completely dominating complete game shutout of the White Sox earlier this year? In 6 starts, he had a 3.18 ERA, which is good for a 139 ERA+.
Not only that, now that Kershaw and Maddux are both in the rotation and both unlikely to go deep into games (for different reasons), the club could certainly use an effective multi-inning guy like Stults, rather than a busted veteran who hasn’t pitched in the bigs in over 2 years (and hasn’t pitched effectively in the bigs in 7 years!)
That’s a negative, Ghost Rider. Did we like keeping Sturtze over picking up another pitcher on waivers?
No, I don’t care about the Twins, and yes, the Dodgers bullpen has been excellent thus far. But the post got me to thinking – should the Blue have tried to go after Reyes? Excellent pen or not, he only has to be better than the weakest link, and when you’ve got Tanyon Sturtze on the payroll, that’s not a tough hurdle to clear. Using Gleeman’s own statistic of xFIP (basically a fancy way of predicting a pitcher’s expected runs allowed per 9 innings, independent of defense), maybe they should have: While Reyes has a xFIP of 4.33, Sturtze is at a truly awful 9.28. However, this doesn’t really mean that the Blue should have acquired Reyes; it just further proves what we’ve been saying all along – that Sturtze doesn’t belong in the big leagues at this point. Would Al Reyes be a better option for a roster spot right now? Sure he would. But so would Eric Stults, Mike Myers, Mike Koplove (once he gets back from Beijing), Matt Riley, and probably James McDonald, too. So that’s only half of the AAA Las Vegas team that’d be preferable – plus even AA lefty Scott Elbert. Passing on Reyes doesn’t really bother me; keeping an inferior option when you’ve got several better ones on the farm does.
And thus, God willing, ends any mention of Worcester’s Own Tanyon Sturtze on this blog or any other.
Finally, one more review. He’s not a reliever, but it was brought to my attention that I neglected to include Jason Schmidt in the starting pitching reviews. To which I say, he didn’t make an appearance in 2008, and I didn’t review Don Drysdale or Mickey Hatcher either. But if we must…
Jason Schmidt
(0-0, – ERA, – WHIP)
Sorry, this is the only picture I could find of Jason Schmidt as a Dodger. Happy?
(Tasteless? Oh, you better believe it. But come on. You laughed, just a bit. You know you did.)
(hat tip, Sons of Steve Garvey for the Dodger casket.)
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

