Let’s Talk About Shortstop
November 30, 2008 at 12:04 am | Posted in Angel Berroa, Chin-Lung Hu, Edgar Renteria, Jack Wilson, Orlando Cabrera | 9 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 | Posted 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 | Posted in not as dumb as you think we are | 10 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 | Posted in Andy Pettitte, Jack Wilson, Mike Lowell, rumors, T.J. Simers, Trevor Hoffman | 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 | Posted 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 | Posted in 2008 in review, Ned Colletti | 9 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 | Posted 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 | Posted 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
MSTI.com’s 2008 In Review: Relief Pitchers
November 17, 2008 at 10:30 am | Posted in 2008 in review, Cory Wade, Ramon Troncoso | Leave a comment
Welcome to day… err, I don’t really know at this point, but welcome to another day of MSTI’s 2008 Season In Review. I apologize for the delay. You see, we are in our pre-hot stove period, but, you see, it’s me. My outside life isn’t particularly conducive to baseball articles and so if there’s usually a gap between posts, it’s probably me not being able to get to the article I said I would. Let’s call it: “Vin Being Vin,” if you will. Yeah… I like that. So before MSTI lands at LAX to beat me with a club screaming: “Friday! You promised me this would be up by Friday, you bastard!” let’s get into the always fun world of relief pitchers…
Takashi Saito = B+
(4-4 , 2.49 ERA, 1.19 WHIP)
O.K., we might as well get it out of the way and just say it: Takashi Saito had, by far, his worst year as a Dodger. The numbers show his worst W/L record, his highest ever ERA, WHIP, and the lowest number of K’s. What a loser, right?
Well, no.
Now, yes, it’s true: he wasn’t quite the same awesome Saito that he was in 2007, but still, he was very good in the time he pitched in 2008. I think in these instances, it really shows how spoiled Dodger fans are when it comes to closers: we went from arguably the most reliable closer in MLB history to a guy who isn’t that far behind in terms of being automatic (and, yes, I know I skipped Danys Baez… but he’s long repressed in my mind). In fact, in his mid-season review, MSTI said something similar:
As for this year, there’s been some sentiment around the Internets that he’s lost it, and I for the life of me just can’t see why. He’s really had two lousy games all season, and his ERA+ is still a fantastic 201. Is it because he’s not as dominating as last year, when he had a better season than future Hall of Famer Mariano Rivera has ever had? Sure, he hasn’t, but he’s still been a pretty damned effective closer, and if he’s DL’d or worse, there’s no question this team’s in trouble without him.
So let’s take a gander at the numbers: in 2008, while he wasn’t Saito 2007, he still managed to put up a 171 ERA+, and have a very good WHIP, at 1.19 (Brad Lidge had a WHIP of 1.22 this year). His K/9 was actually better this year going from 10.91 in 2007 to 11.49 in 2008. In other words, there was still plenty to like about Saito, this year.
However, there were obvious declines. His BB/9 ratio went from 1.82 in 2007 to a 3.06 this year. To get a little geeky, let’s take a look at a stat called pLI. This is called Player’s Leverage Index. Now what do we mean when we talk about leverage index? Well, that’s talking about the importance a certain situation has on a game, and it’s determined by variables such as outs, inning, number of runners on base, the score, etc., etc. So when we talk about Player’s Leverage Index, this is to show the average leverage index a player had throughout the season in games. So in 2007, Saito’s best year, his pLI was 1.80. In 2008, it was a bit lower, at 1.63. The interesting thing to note is that Saito also did seem to suffer a bit of bad luck this year: his BABIP went from .213 in 2007 to a whopping .350. The league average is usually somewhere between .290-.300.
At the end of the day, though, it’s hard to really get the greatest look at Saito’s year simply due to the fact that he was injured quite soon in the year. When he was healthy he was still a very good closer: again, not the top 5 he was before, but still quite capable and enough to earn a B+. What I do especially commend him for was making an attempt to come back. When he went down, it was looking quite possible that he was going to have to undergo Tommy John surgery, but he fought and came back at the end of the year. Unfortunately for him and the club, other than a few good moments, he wasn’t quite the same as we saw in the NLDS. And while the Dodgers were still successful in 2008, he was definitely missed.
Going into 2009, I do see Saito coming back and at least giving it one more shot. Hopefully he can return to form so we can rekindle the lovely Broxton/Saito combo in the 8th and 9th.
Jonathan Broxton = B-
(3-5, 3.13 ERA, 1.17 WHIP)
Now it’s interesting to see how Jonathan Broxton has gradually become a bit of a lightening rod amongst the Dodger faithful. In one circle, you have the group who argues: “That Broxton is a wimp! He can’t handle the pressure as a closer!” and then the group who argues quite the contrary.
It is an intriguing case. No doubt Broxton is incredibly talented and gifted with the tools he has: a 97 MPH fastball with a wicked slider. Can’t go wrong with that. When he is on, he is literally untouchable and my condolences if you have to face him on those nights. On the other hand, he can drive you insane.
Nonetheless, since Broxton was primarily a closer this season, that’s what I want to focus on.
As a closer, Broxton filled in admirably for the injured Saito. However, admirably is about as far as I’ll go. Now this isn’t to say that Broxton was this horrible closer. He wasn’t and many, many teams would be happy to have him as their closer. But let’s face it: despite saving most of his opportunites (14 out of 22), he did make it an adventure in the games he did save. Out of his 14 saves this year, only 6 of them came without allowing a runner on base. This was also showcased in his walk totals where he walked 2 more batters this year than in 2007 (27 to 25 BB), despite having pitched 13 less innings. In fact, his BB/9 ratio jumped considerably, going from 2.74 in 2007 to 3.52 in 2008. To his credit, we also saw an increase in K/9 going from 10.87 to 11.48. Still, the walks killed him many times this year and, in order to be successful consistently, those have to come down. What also hurt Broxton were the two absolutely horrific months he had; in May, where he gave up 10 ER’s to give him a 7.50 that month and then a horrific August, giving up 7 ER’s to the tune of an ERA of 5.11.
But there is still plenty to like about Broxton; as mentioned, we saw an increase in K/9, but he still managed to have a 136 ERA+, a respectable 3.13 ERA and a fine WHIP of 1.17. Another thing we have to remember, and it’s hard to remember when we’re on our toes in the 9th inning: even though he’s the longest tenured Dodger (damn, that’s weird to say) he’s just barely 24. These growing pains will happen and it will be an adventerous road at times. This isn’t to excuse him when he does screw up, but it is to say that if we’re getting this type of production from a 24 year old kid, then I do look optimistically at how he’ll perform as he gets older and gets more experience. Also, I think arguably the biggest problem with Broxton is that he can rely way too much on his fastball and, once he does that, all they have to do is sit on it and it will go a long way (see Stairs, Matt 2008 NLCS). Once Broxton can get more of a handle on his stuff, then watch out.
Joe Beimel = B-
(5-1, 2.44 ERA, 1.44 WHIP)
See Joe Beimel’s pose in that picture where he’s pointing his finger? Little known fact: turns out during one game this year, beloved fan TroyFromWestVirginia ran on the field naked, but with a smile, towards Beimel screaming “I love you, Beimel Baby!” and so that’s actually Joe saying: “Oh My God, can you believe this? Security, get him out of here, now! Help!”
O.K., so maybe not. But you’re probably wondering: for a guy who went 5-1, with a 2.02 ERA, why the hell are you giving him a B-? You might say: “Vin, are you high?” While the answer to that question will remain undisclosed, it is important to note that his W/L record and ERA is a tad deceiving.
So, O.K., his W/L record and ERA was good. In fact, during the first half, he was awesome. MSTI in his first half review:
Joe Beimel (3-0, 1.61) (A)
You know what they say about middle relievers; they’re so up-and-down from year to year that it’s a mistake to ever depend on them. Except for the third year in a row, Joe Beimel’s been incredibly reliable out of the Dodgers bullpen. His ERA is a little deceiving; while he’s clearly doing a good job of not letting guys score, his WHIP is from 1.29 to 1.42 this year. Still, 5 earned runs at the All-Star break is pretty impressive.
Well said, MSTI. He really was something during the first half, wasn’t he? But the second half? Not quite as much. After having a stellar first half, he put up a 4.76 ERA in July and 4.32 in August. To Beimel’s credit, he rebounded well in September (0.90 ERA), but his WHIP bumped from 1.29 last year to 1.44 this year, and while his K/9 ratio went from 5.21 to 5.88, BB/9 ratio went up from 3.21 to 3.86.
Actually, the Kamenetzky Brothers over at the L.A. Times had an interesting take regarding some of the reasons for Beimel’s decline in the second half:
Beimel surrendered seven earned runs over fourteen July/August innings, allowed many an inherited runner to score and bumped his 2007 walk total despite a decrease in frames. In my opinion, the innings drop may have accounted for the production following suit. Joe Torre often shifted Beimel’s role from “seventh inning mainstay” to “one batter-and-out lefty,” a transition I think Beimel never adjusted to, and was often a waste of his services.
I would agree. Nonetheless, Beimel hasn’t done anything to show that he doesn’t deserve the spot in 2009 and here’s to more of the 2006-2007 Beimel.
Cory Wade = A+
(2-1, 2.27 ERA, 0.92 WHIP)
Yeah… who the hell is Cory Wade?
Well, I’ll tell you who he is. Cory Wade in 2008 was the pitching equivalent of Blake DeWitt: in other words, like DeWitt, Wade came out of nowhere from double-A and became a fixture with the team. Of course, there were some differences: unlike DeWitt, Wade was stellar throughout the entire year and, unlike the popularity DeWitt achieved, Wade was truly the definition of the unsung hero.
In 55 appearances this year, which translates into 71.3 innings, Wade put up a good 2.27 ERA with an even better WHIP of 0.92. The great thing about Wade this season is that, as the season went on, he got better. Throughout the first half, his ERA was 2.56, and topped that with a 1.93 ERA in the second half, spurred by great months in August (2.16 ERA) and September (1.08 ERA). In fact, that’s what was so impressive about him, this year. I don’t remember a period where he ever really truly sucked and went all Proctor on us. The worst month he had in 2008 was July, where he had a 3.52 ERA and gave up 6 ER in 15 IP. Not great, but not horrific. He was also arguably our best reliever in 2008 ranking second in VORP only to Hong Chih Kuo with 22.9. Cory was definitely our most reliable, being able to give us a good couple of innings at a time, if need be. In other words: he was this year’s Scott Proctor, much to the delight of Joe Torre, who went to Wade very often.
Overall, though, a hell of a debut for a 25 year old kid who wasn’t expected to do much of anything, much less become a fixture in the bullpen and hopefully for the years to come. He has great stuff and, in particular, quite the nice curveball. Nice year.
Wade to go, Cory!
Scott Proctor = D-
(2-0, 6.05 ERA, 1.68 WHIP)
So Joe Torre finally did it; he finally got Scott Proctor’s arm to fall off midway through the year, having to be DL’d for a large chunk of the year. But, in ways, I feel like I should thank Joe because there was no way to spin Proctor’s year up to that point: he was horrific. Bad. Abominable. Aretha Franklin in a bright yellow teddy bad. (in British accent) Absolutely dreary! The Official 2008 Dodgers’ Bullpen Representative For Crapulence… little children would cry and scream “No, Mommy, no!!!!” when hearing the name “Proctor”… O.K., so maybe I’m exaggerating just a bit. I don’t recall him being a representative for anything.
Nonetheless, 2008 is a year Scott Proctor would like to forget. Proctor began April with a 5.14 ERA. O.K., so just a rough month; he’ll get better right away. Well, in May he shot back with a 6.10 ERA. O.K., so a little concern, but you know what? June will be good!
Scott Proctor’s June statistics: 11.05 ERA, 7.1 IP, 9 ER’s.
O.K., so maybe not?
But his arm decided to say “you know, Scotty, we need some time apart” and he was out for two months. However, to Proctor’s credit, and the only thing that barely keeps him in D range and prevents him from getting F’d is the fact that he was at least respectable when he came back in September, putting up a 2.57 ERA and walking only 2 to striking out 10, but, alas for him, a playoff spot wasn’t to be.
While he gets a D- for his performance this year, there is no need to fret: he did come in runner up to Brad Penny for the Biggest Douche Of The Universe Award. How could we forget this…
LOS ANGELES – For the past month, Scott Proctor insisted that his arm was not hurting. After being told he was going to be optioned to Class AAA Las Vegas on Wednesday, he changed his tune and said he has been pitching in pain.
[. . . ]
After being repeatedly asked by Torre if an injury led to his rough stretch, Proctor told him his right elbow has hurt for nearly six weeks.
“There is still no excuse. I don’t care how bad you’re hurting, you still have to go out and pitch,” Proctor said. “I don’t like the way this thing looks right now. Right now all I care about is the respect of my teammates and coaches.
As opposed to… oh, I don’t know, winning games?! Way to put the team first, jackass.
Ramon Troncoso = C
(1-1, 4.26 ERA, 1.28 WHIP)
Wow… Ramon Troncoso! Doesn’t reading this part of the review just fill you with excitement?!
Snooze…
O.K., I thought so. Still, Troncoso was another rookie inserted into the bullpen in 2008, although not quite the story Cory Wade was. But, nonetheless, Troncoso didn’t Falkenborg himself either, going from a less than stellar 4.91 ERA in the first half to a respectable 3.81 in the second half, sparked by a good August where he sported a good 2.57 ERA. His ERA+ was 100 even and that about sums it up; average and servicable for the role he played throughout the season. For a person in his rookie year, not bad; here’s to an improvement in 2009, but otherwise; not really much to say about the big Tronny.
- Vin 
Just When You Think There’s Nothing Fun to Critique…
November 16, 2008 at 9:55 am | Posted in Bill Plaschke, Manny Ramirez | 6 CommentsHey! We’re not dead. It’s just that there’s only so many free agent rumors one can handle until the real fireworks start going. Just in sort of a post-October, pre-hot stove sort of malaise, as it were. We’re going to finish up the 2008 season reviews this week, and hopefully start talking about filling all of the enormous holes the Dodgers have to get to. But first things first: in fond memory of the dearly departed Fire Joe Morgan, we simply must discuss Bill Plaschke’s plan to improve the Dodgers in 2009. Actually I’m pretty surprised to say that there’s some reasonable ideas in here; it’s just that a lot of the ways he backs them up are laughable.
Since Plaschke columns are always comprised of one-line paragraphs, I’m not going to post every single one here. Instead, we’re going to go with his overall themes, and his first one is to let Manny go, because he’s old, overpaid, maybe a problem – you know the reasons. That’s a defensible position, and I could see either way being the right way. That said, I do like some of Plaschke’s reasons…
The Boston Red Sox advanced to within one game of the World Series in their first months without Manny.
As opposed to the two World Series they won in the previous four seasons with Manny? It’s a hard concept to understand, I know, but good players make your team better.
The Cleveland Indians won 91 games and their division title in their first season without Manny.
In Manny’s last year in Cleveland (2000), Cleveland won 90 games, but finished in second because Chicago won 95. The next year, the Indians returned a similar team except that they’d replaced Manny with a guy who hit nearly as well in Juan Gonzalez (148 OPS+) and added rookie Sabathia, who went 17-5 at 20 years old. That team won 91 games, but this time no other team in the division won more than 85 games. I’m thinking that more Sabathia and less competition might be the reason that Cleveland won that division title, much moreso than any post-Manny bounce?
If Manny Ramirez couldn’t carry this current team to that final lap during a postseason in which he hit .520, what makes you think he could ever do it?
If this team didn’t win despite Manny hitting .520, what exactly makes you think they have a better shot without that production?
Here’s how:
Ink an ace.
The lack of a true No. 1 starting pitcher was the reason the Dodgers lost to the Philadelphia Phillies, and even a lineup full of Mannies won’t change this.
First of all, a lineup of Mannies would win about 158 games, and I’m only even considering 4 losses based on the worry that all 9 of them would play hooky on the same day a few times. It’s true that Chad Billingsley’s failures really doomed the club in that series, although I like to think the fact that absolutely no one besides Manny and James Loney contributed to the offense was a pretty big reason too. Russell Martin and Blake DeWitt combining to go 3-30; would that be Manny’s fault or Billingsley’s?
Yes, CC Sabathia would be that guy, and here’s guessing he would walk away from the prospect of New York Yankees riches to pitch in an easier league for a more laid-back crowd within driving distance of his Bay Area hometown.
Sabathia has struggled in the postseason, but he’s always been overworked by the time his teams arrived there. Joe Torre would keep him fresh, and Dodger Stadium would make him shine.
“Joe Torre would keep him fresh”? The same Joe Torre that’s currently the manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers? The same guy who’s had a near Baker-eqsue reputation for latching on to a few pitchers and driving them into the ground? On what basis do you expect that Joe Torre would keep CC Sabathia “fresh”?
Plaschke then moves on to three points that while I’m okay with, he clearly didn’t come up with himself, since each has been bouncing around for weeks, if not longer: Sign Randy Johnson, trade for Adrian Beltre, and sign Rafael Furcal. Each of these are fine, except that I think Plashke severely underestimates how much competition there is out there for Furcal right now. Here’s where it gets fun again:
Count on the kids.
It’s interesting how some of the same people who have been applauding the club’s youth movement have also insisted on re-signing Ramirez.
Um, that’s why they call it a youth “movement.” The kids are moving up. They are getting better.
You may remember that this is the same guy who consistently called for not waiting on the kids, until it became apparent that they were going to be good players and that he’d better change his tune on this, quickly. But let’s look at that middle sentence. We have of course been on the “kid” bandwagon forever around here – just look at our banner. However, I also want to see Manny come back. What makes Plaschke think these things are mutually exclusive? There’s no hot prospect outfielder that Manny would be blocking; we’re not talking about signing Mark Teixeira even though James Loney is already here. Half the benefit of having so many young players is that they make relatively small salaries, opening up a lot of payroll room for a big star like Manny. Wouldn’t the best outcome be a bunch of good young players… and Manny Ramirez?
March on Atlanta.
The Dodgers have hired a personal trainer to work with bulging bust Andruw Jones at his Georgia home.
“Every time we talk to the trainer, he says Andruw is working,” Colletti said.
Keep the pressure on Jones, maybe he can reshape his body to hit again in the post-steroids era. Other have done it. For $22.5 million, the Dodgers have to at least watch Jones try.
It’s great that the Dodgers have a trainer working with Jones, but there is absolutely no way you can count on him for anything other than single-handedly putting In-N-Out out of business. You can’t possibly swap out Manny for Jones in the outfield and expect it to be anything other than an enormous downgrade.
Wait for July.
After what happened last year, no Dodgers fan can fairly judge this team’s personnel until after the trading deadline.
Next summer, with the economic woes certain to affect big-spending, low-producing teams, there will be bargains everywhere.
If the Dodgers still need a big hitter, chances are there will be one available.
He won’t be another Manny. But if the Dodgers plan right, they won’t need one.
But according to your plan, there’s a gigantic Jonesian hole in centerfield. Getting Beltre and Furcal would be nice, but hardly enough of an improvement to make up for what we’d lose by playing Jones every day rather than Manny. Adding Sabathia to Billingsley, Kershaw, and Kuroda would of course be fantastic, but we’d be looking forward to a whole lot of 2-1 games with an offense lacking that huge bat.
Oh, and Bill – we do have a bullpen to worry about as well, you know.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
