Ryan Theriot Traded For Living, Breathing, Human Being
November 30, 2010 at 12:59 pm | Posted in Blake Hawksworth, Ryan Theriot | 49 Comments
The news keeps coming fast and furious:
The #Dodgers have traded Ryan Theriot to the #Cardinals in exchange for RHP Blake Hawksworth
Hawksworth is… well, he’s not Ryan Theriot, and that makes this a big win. Seriously, though, he’s a 27-year-old (28 in March) righty who’s pitched in 75 games for the Cards over the last two years, with all 8 of his starts coming in 2010. One of those starts came against the Dodgers on June 7, and it didn’t go well, as he allowed six ER in 4 IP.
He’s got a career FIP of 4.76, and he’s a fastball/change-up type with heat that averages about 93 MPH, so he’s certainly not great, but he’s not without his uses, and he’s not even arbitration-eligible until 2013. So maybe he’s a bullpen swingman, maybe he’s in the ABQ rotation (okay, perhaps not; I’ve been told he’s out of options). But most of all, he’s not Ryan Theriot – and that’s a win.
As for the Cardinals, is Theriot a perfect fit for a team that employs Brendan Ryan and Aaron Miles or what? Yeesh.
Let’s Get Older!
November 30, 2010 at 11:57 am | Posted in Jason Varitek, Johnny Damon | 43 CommentsBefore you look at this, it’s really important to note that it’s just a rumor from a “source”. 99% of these never turn into anything at all, and that’s why I don’t always want to post them. But then I realize that people are going to want to
discuss them, so I might as well provide a forum for that. I just ask that you not completely destroy the front office over this until it, you know, actually happens.
Two older free agents – outfielder Johnny Damon, 37, and catcher Jason Varitek, 38 – are among the players on the Dodgers’ radar, according to major-league sources.
In fact, the Dodgers are in contact with virtually every free-agent catcher – Rod Barajas, A.J. Pierzynski, Miguel Olivo – as they try to determine their next step with Russell Martin.
Martin, 27, is at least a week away from running, sources say, and perhaps six weeks away from resuming baseball activities. He would be returning to the most physically demanding position on the field. And his offensive performance is in decline – he posted on-base slugging percentages of .680 and .679 the past two seasons, though he did not play after Aug. 3 last season due to his injury.
Damon seemingly would be a better fit in the American League – more than 75 percent of his plate appearances for the Tigers last season were as a DH. But with the Dodgers, he could replace free agent Scott Podsednik and hit second behind Rafael Furcal.
The Dodgers likely would want assurances that Damon was in good enough shape to play the outfield. But the team’s current left fielder, Jay Gibbon, also is below-average defensively, and Damon would carry added value as a positive influence for the club’s younger players.
Damon is all but unplayable in the outfield and had a .756 OPS last year. Varitek hasn’t been worth more than 1.0 fWAR since 2007.
How Do You Feel About Juan Uribe in 2013? (Updated)
November 29, 2010 at 10:54 am | Posted in Jon Garland, Juan Uribe | 118 CommentsI didn’t really want to talk about Juan Uribe again, especially bumping Vin’s birthday down the page, but with Jon Heyman reporting that the club is close to finalizing a 3/$21m deal with him, I suppose people are going to want to discuss it.
Before we get into the epic freakout that giving a mediocre player a three-year committment is sure to kick off, let’s at least note the positives here – and yes, there are some. Such as…
1) Signing Uribe would almost certainly mean that Ryan Theriot gets non-tendered. That doesn’t make giving Uribe three years okay, of course, but any solution that ends with Theriot leaving town has at least some merit.
2) It does improve the team somewhat in 2011. Unfortunately, that’s more because Theriot is awful and not because Uribe is all that great. He’s got far more power and he’s a better defender, and he was worth 2.8 and 3.2 fWAR over the last two years. I’m on record as saying that I don’t think Ivan DeJesus is ready in 2010, and Uribe is near the top of a bad list of options to fill the role. The Dodgers were a team short on power and fielding last year, and this helps with both for 2011.
3) It gives the club flexibility going forward. I hate giving Uribe three guaranteed years – more on that in a second – but don’t forget how in flux the Dodger infield is. Besides for the big hole at 2B, Rafael Furcal and Casey Blake are each entering the final guaranteed years of their contracts. There’s no obvious successor at 3B coming from within, and while we all hope Dee Gordon is ready to take over SS in 2012, he’s very raw and it’s not guaranteed. So Uribe’s flexibility could help the team in years to come.
Now that we’ve got the positives out of the way… what in the hell is this team doing giving three years* and $22m to Juan Uribe?! (*standard caveat of “it’s just a report, and not an official deal yet” applies.) Uribe’s never had even a two-year deal in his life. He was quite good in 2005 with the White Sox (111 OPS+, 23 HR), but after four consecutive years of not having an OBP over .301, he was cut loose after 2008. The Giants got him for 1 year, $1m in 2009, and he was quite good again – 112 OPS+ – so they resigned him for 1 year, $3.2m in 2010. Other than increasing his HR, he completely regressed at he plate. His OPS fell from .824 to .749, and his wOBA fell from .351 to .322.
That doesn’t make him useless, but as I’ve said every other time I’ve talked about him, I like him for one year and I’d accept an option for a second. But now we’re taking a guy whose age 25-28 seasons were all basically a waste, had one good year at 29 and couldn’t quite keep it up at 30 three guaranteed years? Why? Because he was a Giant? Because he hit a homer in the World Series (despite doing little else in October)?
Look at it this way. I didn’t like giving Casey Blake a third guaranteed year after 2008, and Blake was at least coming off of seven consecutive years of solid average-to-above-average play. Uribe gets credit for playing the middle infield where Blake cannot, but he’s coming off of.. well, you know. Yet he also gets three years, more money, and Uribe has his share of questions about his weight and work ethic which Blake did not. Besides, we all know the Dodgers like to backload their contracts, so it won’t be an even 7/7/7 (ish) split. Look forward to paying Uribe $10m in 2013!
And the question must be asked: what now? The Dodgers have already spent far more than any of us expected they would this offseason, but there’s still a lot of holes. They still don’t have a catcher or a left fielder, and they still have mediocre production from first base and third base. Now I’ll reserve my judgement on that until I see what shakes out in the rest of the offseason, but if Juan Uribe is your big acquisition to fix an offense that was awful last year, that’s just not good enough.
I suppose it all comes down to this. In a vacuum, I like Jon Garland‘s one-plus-one deal. For 2011 only, I like Juan Uribe. But you’ve just committed (assuming Garland hits his 190 IP to trigger his option, which is very likely) $35-$38m (Garland has $3m in 2011 incentives) to two guys who are useful pieces, but hardly gamechangers. If you had $38m to spend over the next three years… well, that’s pretty damn close to buying Adam Dunn, isn’t it?
For over a year now, we’ve complained that the McCourt divorce case is hindering the baseball operations team from making the moves they needed. Perhaps we were shortsighted; the big downside of having money to spend is that this team now has money to spend.
******
Update, 1:45pm PST: Hey, today just keeps getting better and better! Jon Garland was just on Jim Bowden’s XM radio show. Bowden tweets:
Jon Garland just told us that teams wouldn’t offer him a multi-year deal because of MRI’s and Physicians opinions that he would break-down
I didn’t hear this live, so it’s possible something was lost in the translation, but it’s an eye-opener. On one hand, this seems highly unlikely, because Garland is known for his durability – and because what player would admit that?! On the other hand, it’s not like Ned Colletti’s never knowingly signed an injured pitcher before.
Happy Birthday, Vin
November 29, 2010 at 10:34 am | Posted in Vin Scully | 10 CommentsHappy 83rd to the best there ever was. I’d give just about anything for the winter to be over and to hear “it’s time for Dodger baseball!” again right now.
I Suppose It’s Time to Discuss Juan Uribe
November 28, 2010 at 9:41 pm | Posted in Jesse Crain, Juan Uribe | 26 CommentsAs I was riding the train home today, I came upon a Ken Rosenthal blog post outlining why he thinks that Juan Uribe would be a perfect fit for the Dodgers, who have a big hole at 2B, a declining 3B, and an injury-prone SS. Minutes later, Ken Gurnick posted at dodgers.com that the club is actually “targeting” Uribe.
I’m not sure if Gurnick was just parroting Rosenthal, since the two posts appeared so quickly after each other, but in Gurnick’s version the club was showing interest in Uribe, which is a notable point absent from Rosenthal’s story. Either way, this is about to become a thing, so now is as good a time as any to look into whether the Dodgers should be going after Uribe.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because I proposed the exact same thing in my 2011 plan back in early October:
5) Sign Juan Uribe to a 1-year, $5m deal to play 2B with an option for 2012.
Yes, he’s a Giant, and one with a .310 OBP at that. But the Dodgers are probably going to pay Theriot $3.5m to play decentish defense while being a black hole at the plate. If you’re going to pay that much for a 2B without much of an OBP, why not pay just a bit more for better defense and more power?
Theriot has 16 homers in his big-league career. Uribe has hit at least 16 in six of the last seven seasons; his .440 SLG this year and .431 SLG career is nearly 100 points better than Theriot’s ever had. On defense, Uribe (10.9 UZR/150 at 2B) is better than Theriot is (4.3 UZR/150 at 2B), plus he’s above average at SS and 3B – and provides excellent insurance for another Rafael Furcal injury, as he started 96 games at SS this year with Edgar Renteria ailing.
Uribe’s not perfect. But for $4-5m, would you rather a low-OBP guy with zero power and decent defense, or a low-OBP guy with good power and plus defense? Now, it’s possible I’m short-changing the contract Uribe would get here, but he was horrendous in 2007 and ’08, to the point where he had to take a minor-league deal before 2009. That, plus the fact he’s turning 32 next summer and that he entered 2010 as a backup to Renteria and Freddy Sanchez, means I can’t see anyone investing a bunch of years.
Now, it should be noted that I wrote that before the Giants made the bulk of their playoff run. Uribe was actually kind of lousy in the playoffs (he got on base just 10 times in 51 plate appearances) but he gained notoriety by hitting the game-winning homer in Game 6 of the NLCS, which he followed up with a three-run shot in Game 1 of the World Series. So if that inflated his market value to the point where he’s getting guaranteed big money 2- or 3- year deals, then count me out. I’d like to think that two big homers in the midst of a terrible postseason wouldn’t fool teams into giving him more than he’s really worth, but you can never count on logic too much with some teams.
Still, if he can be had for one year (and I’m willing to include an option for another), it’s a deal worth making. It’s clear with the signings of Ted Lilly, Hiroki Kuroda, and Jon Garland that the Dodgers plan on going for it in 2011, and you can’t do that with Ryan Theriot at second base. Uribe’s not the ideal solution – low-OBP guys who were sub-replacement in their age 26-28 seasons rarely are – but middle infielders with pop and above-average gloves are valuable, particularly on a team that was short on both power and defense last year. You could sign him and install him immediately as the 2011 second baseman, knowing you have another option if/when Rafael Furcal gets injured. Then, assuming he had an option or a second year, he could stay at 2B in 2011, slide over to 3B once Casey Blake is gone, or ideally even become an infield super sub if you managed to get superior options at all three spots. And if the side benefit of that is weakening the Giants, all the better.
In an odd way, however, signing Uribe might almost make me more apt to want to bring back Russell Martin. Rod Barajas is, in a way, similar to Uribe in that he’s got decent power and poor OBP skills. The Dodgers weren’t great at OBP last year, and Uribe wouldn’t help that; bringing back Barajas as well would be a killer in that category. Martin may not have power anymore, but he is one of the better OBP catchers around. Ken Gurnick also noted that Ned Colletti wanted to re-sign Barajas quickly, but that Barajas chose to test the market. For all the platitudes about how happy Barajas was to play for his hometown team last year, I find that decision surprising. I didn’t really want him back anyway, and even if he did I’d only like it at a big hometown discount.
Back on topic, Uribe would indeed be a good fit for the 2011 Dodgers – at the right price. One year? One with an option? Sure. Count me in.
******
Unrelated, but Peter Gammons is reporting that the Dodgers (and eight other teams!) are sniffing around Twins reliever Jesse Crain. I like Crain just fine, and he’d be a nice addition to any team’s bullpen, but I don’t think the Dodgers should really be putting a lot of money into signing free agent relievers. Bullpen arms are notoriously inconsistent from year to year, making most of them poor investments at the inflated prices of the free market, and since we don’t know how much money the Dodgers have left after rebuilding the rotation, the offense really needs to be the top priority.
Dodgers Bring Back Jon Garland
November 26, 2010 at 5:55 pm | Posted in Jon Garland | 83 Comments
Well, this came out of nowhere – the Dodgers have signed Jon Garland to a one-year deal. Dylan Hernandez has the terms of the deal:
Garland deal with Dodgers: $5MM plus incentives in 2011; vesting option for 2012 worth $8MM.
Hernandez adds that the 2012 option vests if Garland pitches 190 innings in 2011, a mark he has reached in each of the last nine seasons. Garland, as you might remember, was a late acquisition by the Dodgers in 2009 and made six decent starts (2.72 ERA / 3.84 FIP) down the stretch. He won 14 games with San Diego last season, though Petco Park certainly helped; his 3.47 ERA is quite a bit lower than his 4.41 FIP, and his home ERA was a full run lower than his road ERA.
In a vacuum, this is a great move to fill out the rotation. Garland is certainly nothing spectacular, but his durability (9 straight years of at least 32 starts) and reliable average performance (FIP between 4.05 and 4.93 in each of those nine years) makes him one of the best #5 starters in the league. Seriously, #5 spots for most teams are average at best and dreadful at worst; there’s not too many clubs who can say that they can do better than Garland there. He’s certainly not someone you’d rely on to carry your staff, but when you remember how often the Dodgers trotted out Charlie Haeger, John Ely and Carlos Monasterios last year, he’s a big improvement. All along, I’ve said that I’m more than happy with Ely as your #7 (or so) starter, a guy you call on when injuries hit, but counting on him to be your #5 is terrifying. With this move, we no longer have to worry about going into camp worrying about that.
I have to say, a rotation of Kershaw / Billingsley / Kuroda / Lilly / Garland is incredibly solid. Kershaw’s a young ace, and Billingsley’s not far behind him. Kuroda and Lilly are both solid veterans with the ability to come up with a gem from time to time, and Garland’s one of the most reliable inning-eating starters in baseball. This is a durable rotation with the right mix of youth, experience, and talent.
So this leaves us with two questions. #1, with yet another veteran signing, what’s left over in the bank to bolster the offense? As much as I like this rotation, you can’t just bring back the same offense; we saw how that worked last year, and all the pitching in the world doesn’t overcome that. #2, Garland for $5m in 2011 is a nice deal, but $8m in 2012 seems a little steep. It’s not guaranteed that he’ll get that vesting option, of course, but considering he hasn’t missed 190 IP since 2001, so it’s a pretty safe bet that he’ll make it. So the question has to be asked – if you could have had Vicente Padilla (who now seems assured of being elsewhere) for $5m in 2011 without the risk of paying him $8m in 2012, is that a better deal? I don’t think there’s much argument that when they’re both healthy and at their peak, Padilla is a more effective pitcher than Garland is, though of course Garland has nothing like the injury or personal history that Padilla does. My initial feeling is that after last year’s troubles, Garland’s reliability is worth the risk over Padilla’s potential, but it’s a question worth asking.
All in all, I’m satisfied with this move, and it’s good to know that the rotation is totally set and solid before December has even started. Great job by Ned Colletti and co. to take care of this situation so completely, while other teams are left to fight for the scraps.
Update: Ramona Shelburne of ESPN.com notes that Garland also has $3m in 2011 incentives that could get him up to $8m total for this year as well, and adds about the new rotation:
The Dodgers’ starting five for the 2011 season – Clayton Kershaw, Chad Billingsley, Hiroki Kuroda, Ted Lilly and Garland — had a cumulative 2010 ERA of 3.39 (371 ER/986.0 IP) and a .234 opponents’ batting average (857-for-3663) would have led all major league starting rotations.
Well, you just can’t argue with that.
MSTI’s 2010 in Review: Management
November 26, 2010 at 11:26 am | Posted in Joe Torre, Ned Colletti | 24 CommentsWith the players in the books, we turn to management today. Though I’m going to reference some moves from previous years, the grade is based only on putting together the 2010 club, so only moves made from the last pitch of 2009 until the end of the 2010 season are considered.
Ned Colletti (D-)
Ned Colletti got off to a pretty atrocious start as Dodger general manager after arriving in the winter of 2005-06. He signed Juan Pierre, Jason Schmidt, and Andruw Jones to disastrous big-money deals. He gave nearly $10m to broken-down Bill Mueller, who played all of 32 games for the Dodgers. He traded top prospect Carlos Santana to Cleveland for far less than his value, and he made more than one terrible trade with Tampa, ultimately losing Edwin Jackson for veterans and spare parts. Those are only the marquee mistakes, since there’s plenty of arguments to be made that several good young role players were lost in the name of keeping useless veterans like Ricky Ledee and Jose Cruz, Jr. Besides, he signed Angel Berroa. Twice!
Fairly or unfairly, even the successes that did happen weren’t seen as being fully credited to him. No one on the planet saw Andre Ethier turning into what he has, signing Hiroki Kuroda was in large part due to Logan White (who at one point said he’d “stake his reputation on him”), and the Manny Ramirez deal basically fell into his lap. Though much was made of the team going to the playoffs three times in four years, the 2006 club was largely Paul DePodesta’s doing, and the 2008 and 2009 teams were built on the back of White’s farm system. It’s no secret that I, and many like me, have not been the biggest fan of Ned Colletti.
However, after the 2008 season ended, I felt his performance began to improve. Though I didn’t like giving three years to Casey Blake, it wasn’t fatal (Blake was very good in 2009), and he did a masterful job in waiting out Scott Boras in the Manny negotiations (and although there’s an argument to be made that the deal wasn’t worth it, don’t forget what Boras originally wanted, and that this was pre-suspension, much-loved Manny). He was able to land Randy Wolf and Orlando Hudson when they signed below-market one-year deals, and picking up Vicente Padilla off the scrap heap late in the 2009 season worked out wonderfully. Santana aside, all of the prospects we’d grown attached to – Matt Kemp, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, etc. – were still in the organization, and we can’t possibly know what the real impact of the McCourt divorce was on his decision-making, which is largely why I’m giving him a pass here on the foolish decisions to not offer arbitration to Wolf or Hudson after 2009.
Though I still wouldn’t consider myself a fan of Colletti, my opinion of him had definitely improved heading into the 2010 season. Sorry to say, nearly all of that goodwill has now been washed away after a series of disastrous moves.
Let’s be fair here and start with the one really good offseason move, trading Pierre to Chicago for John Ely and Jon Link. At the time, I said:
Indeed, because despite how much some of us may have wanted to get Ned Colletti’s promised “back of the rotation” starter, this deal is not about the players who the Dodgers get. This deal would be a win even if no one came back.
Think about the gift the White Sox have bestowed upon the Dodgers, even without the players. They’ve basically paid LA $8m to have less controversy and better defense off the bench. Who cares if the pitchers coming back are even breathing?
Of course, Ely and Link both look to be useful, so that’s a nice win for Colletti, even if it is rectifying a huge mistake of his own making. Signing Jamey Carroll also worked out a lot better than most of us expected, as well. Otherwise? Yikes.
The problems began in the spring, where not one but two horrible retread Ortizes made the roster. Then Eric Stults, hardly a star but certainly usable for a team with rotation questions, was sold off to Japan without much of a reason. And despite several rounds of begging on my part, Garret Anderson was signed and made the team.
At the end of April, with the Dodgers struggling on all fronts, Colletti chose to call out Matt Kemp for his baserunning and defense. The issue here is not that Colletti was wrong, but that his timing was absurd. The Dodgers of late April had huge problems with pitching and fielding, while the offense was doing fine. Kemp had an OPS of .934 at that point; he managed just .730 for the rest of the season as controversy swirled. That’s more on Kemp than Colletti, of course, but the comments certainly didn’t help. As I said at the time, there were about three dozen reasons bigger than Kemp why the team was flailing.
In May, Xavier Paul and Ely were sent down in order to keep the atrocious Anderson and Ramon Ortiz, which would be bad enough, except the kicker was the comments made by Paul:
“I don’t fit here right now, that’s it,” Paul said after being consoled by teammates Casey Blake and Matt Kemp. “Right now, I just don’t cut it here.”
Paul said he was told by general manager Ned Colletti to work on his mental approach to the game “and being a big leaguer.”
In addition, when Rafael Furcal was hurt that month, Nick Green was chosen to replace him rather than Chin-lung Hu. In the space of a week, three young players were passed over for three useless veterans.
Then July hit, and things really got ugly with three ill-conceived deadline deals. Octavio Dotel pitched just 18.2 IP for the Dodgers before being dumped on Colorado. Ryan Theriot was horrendous, with a .606 OPS, and Scott Podsednik managed just a .313 OBP before being injured. Only Ted Lilly provided any value at all, but as I said more than once before the deadline, the starting pitching wasn’t the problem – the offense was. Even with Lilly making a good impression, adding Theriot and Podsednik sunk the offense even further, and we all saw how well that ended. These were trades that never should have been made.
That’s just talking about who came to LA, without even considering the prospects that left town. Though giving up Andrew Lambo and James McDonald for Dotel was a crime in itself, what really bothered me is that for the seven prospects the team gave up, they got one good pitcher and a pile of crap. If you were going to trade all that, shouldn’t you have received more? This bothered me at the time…
In the last few days, the Dodgers have traded James McDonald, Blake DeWitt, Andrew Lambo, Lucas May, Kyle Smit, Elisaul Pimentel, and Brett Wallach.
They’ve acquired Ted Lilly, Ryan Theriot, Scott Podsednik, and Octavio Dotel – basically, a decent but not vital starter, a lousy middle infielder, a mediocre outfielder, and a decent veteran reliever, and all over 30.
Now, most of the baseball community has spent an enormous amount of time lately laughing at the Diamondbacks and Astros for the seemingly meager hauls they pulled in for Dan Haren and Roy Oswalt. You’re telling me that some combination of the players the Dodgers just traded couldn’t have pulled in one of those guys? Alternatively, is there really anyone who wouldn’t have preferred Haren or Oswalt rather than the collection of mediocre, over-30 veterans they just pulled in?
Yet despite all the moves, the offense – the biggest problem – didn’t get improved, and arguably was made worse. That’s supposed to help propel the team to October how, exactly? Really, what a terrible day all around.
…and I don’t feel much differently about it now. It soon became clear the new acquisitions weren’t going to get the team to the playoffs, and other than Lilly were proving to actively hurt that goal. This led to Manny being claimed off of waivers by Chicago, a move I promoted. However, when you’re letting your most talented hitter walk for nothing, that seems like a pretty big sign that this is not your year and it’s time to move on.
If you decide that it’s time to pack it up, and to move Manny, it shouldn’t stop there. Ted Lilly should go. Hiroki Kuroda. Octavio Dotel. Casey Blake, if you can get anyone to pick up his contract for next year. Really, anyone who’s not signed for 2011 or doesn’t have a good chance of returning should be moved. I’m probably not speaking for the majority here, but if the team doesn’t make the playoffs then it makes no difference at all to me whether they finish 4 games out or 10.
Manny did get claimed, and the next day I begged Colletti to swallow his pride and start selling in August for what he could get:
Hiroki Kuroda, perhaps at the peak of his value after last night’s gem, was claimed on waivers by the Padres, who could badly use a veteran starter.
Ted Lilly, who’s been brilliant since coming to the Dodgers except for his last start, was claimed on waivers by the Yankees, who have serious depth issues in the rotation.
Yet the Dodgers, in their infinite wisdom, decided to trade neither one, meaning they’re doing exactly what I begged them not to last week: they’re doing this half-assed. They have a 4.1% chance of making the playoffs, and they just dumped their best hitter on the White Sox, yet they’re acting like they’re primed for a playoff push.
Of course, none of that happened. Yes, they did re-sign Lilly and Kuroda, but if they wanted to play in LA so badly that could have still happened this winter.
All in all, not a great season for the general manager, and it doesn’t engender a lot of confidence going forward. Hey, I’m not perfect either. Not every move I liked has worked out, and you’re always going to come up with some stinkers, no matter what you do. There’s just a big difference between well-intentioned moves that don’t pay off, and moves that were a terrible idea from the moment they were conceived. I’d like to see the Dodgers get a few less of the latter.
So much has been said about Torre already that I’m going to take the easy way out and reiterate what I said about him when he officially stepped down:
As for Torre not returning, you know me well enough by now to know that I’m thrilled by this news, because Torre’s time in LA had clearly passed. Honestly, I could go for weeks about the issues I’ve had with his management – you know, things like incorrectly playing the matchups, generally overworking the bullpen, bringing in George Sherrill against a righty in the 9th inning of a tie game, letting Jonathan Broxton throw 95 pitches in five days (which he still hasn’t recovered from), sitting Matt Kemp in favor of Juan Pierre, continuous usage of clearly busted veterans like Garret Anderson & Mark Sweeney, running Russell Martin into the ground (in addition to his ridiculous “third base days off“), batting Juan Pierre leadoff every goddamn day, tempting the fates of both Chad Billingsley and Hiroki Kuroda by using them before and after long rain delays, and finally, the most ridiculous quote anyone’s ever given:
“I tried to reason who was going to give me the better at-bat – Berroa or Loney,” Torre said.
…which I’m still reeling from, even though it was two years ago. I’ve barely scratched the surface there, but I’m not going to go any further. Partially, that’s because I don’t have the time to clear my schedule for two solid weeks to dig up every stupid thing he’s done, but mostly because the last three years of this blog provide a pretty solid record of it.
Besides, it’s unfair to not at least recognize his accomplishments, and the team did make it to the NLCS twice in his three years. While I haven’t always agreed with the way he ran the clubhouse, the off-field drama this team has had to deal with since arrival – the divorce and Manny’s suspension, just to name two - could have easily led to a complete collapse under a lesser manager. It hasn’t been smooth, but Torre mostly avoided that, and he deserves credit for it.
Mostly, I’m just glad he’s moving on. Torre may have been the right fit for the 2008 and 2009 teams, talented outfits that were trying to heal from the “veterans-vs-kids” split of the Grady Little years. Clearly, he’s not the right fit for the 2010 club, and I can’t see his “old-school” style working as this team moves forward.
That about sums it up.
******
That’s it for the 2010 season in review pieces; thanks for sticking through me despite how depressing most of them ended up being. Unless anything happens on the player front, we’ll be back on Monday as the Hot Stove really gets going. Enjoy the weekend.
Did You Want Aubrey Huff?
November 24, 2010 at 10:49 am | Posted in Aubrey Huff | 64 CommentsOf the many criticisms directed at Ned Colletti over the years, there’s one I’ve never particularly agreed with, and that’s that he has a fascination with ex-Giants, having served as the club’s AGM for years. Most of the imports from San Francisco have basically been irrelevant, like Justin Miller, and Jeff Kent has an argument to be the best 2nd baseman in LA Dodger history. (Okay, Russ Ortiz was a complete disaster all around.) (Edit: as Alireza helpfully points out in the comments, Kent was a Paul DePodesta signing.)
So when the Giants won the World Series a few weeks ago on the backs of a strong pitching staff and miraculous, never-to-be-repeated performances by a bunch of generally mediocre veteran bats, the concern was that Colletti would look at his old mates and try to emulate that model. Hey, it’s not like he doesn’t have the art of signing mediocre veterans down to a science already, right?
Now personally, I never really bought into that. I could care less where the player came from and what team he’d been on before, as long as he can help the Dodgers going forward. Hell, other than Barry Bonds, Kent was the face of those early-decade Giants clubs, and he still became a valued Dodger just because of his performance on the field. (If not so much because of his performance off it.)
When Colletti signed Ted Lilly and Hiroki Kuroda to seveneight-figure contracts over the last few weeks, the voices rose once again. “He’s just going to spend on pitching! But what about the offense that was so bad last year? Just because it worked once for the Giants doesn’t mean it’ll work for us!” You’d be surprised how often I heard that, but I always found it ridiculous. There’s no argument that Lilly and Kuroda improve the club (for 2011, at least), and the starting rotation had only two returning starters in Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley. Why wouldn’t you want to improve the rotation? Sure, you could go get Carl Crawford and blow all your money in one place, but then what? Is your 3/4/5 John Ely, Charlie Haeger, and Dana Eveland? No, thanks.
But then the Giants signed Aubrey Huff to a 2/$22m deal, which most observers found to be excessive. Huff was awful at the plate in 2009, and has never been a good defender, so entering his age-33 season in 2010 he managed only a 1/$3m commitment from the Giants. The deal paid off wonderfully, but Huff tailed off at the season ended, putting up just a .786 OPS with 6 homers after August 1, with an OPS under .700 in the playoffs.
Still, he was a big part of why the Giants made it to October, so for them to overpay him was a little understandable. But there was an interesting facet to the deal, and that’s that another team had actually offered it and Giants GM Brian Sabean had to go to ownership for permission to match, which he received.
Do you really have to guess what team that ended up being?
After re-signing free-agent first baseman Aubrey Huff to a two-year, $22 million contract, Giants GM Brian Sabean told reporters, “One other club accelerated their interest and we played tag with that and were able to get in a position where we matched what the other club did.”
Who was that other club?
The Dodgers, according to major-league sources.
It could not be confirmed whether the Dodgers actually matched the Giants’ offer, but the team had definite interest in Huff, sources said.
Huff, who turns 34 on Dec. 20, could have fit the Dodgers at first base if the team traded James Loney or in left field as an upgrade over Jay Gibbons.
Of course it was. Because, why wouldn’t you want to get an overrated, declining older bat for big dollars? The fit here doesn’t even make sense; as a lefty bat, he can’t be platooned with either Loney or Gibbons. If you planned on putting him at 1B, then that makes Loney’s already-low trade value just about zero. If you want to put him in left field, well, there’s a reason that baseball-reference lists his position as “First Baseman, Designated Hitter and Third Baseman”. It’s one thing to suffer with bad defense when you’re getting Manny-level production, but Huff has been up-and-down in recent years and is hardly a lock to be valuable.
If there’s good news here, it’s that the Dodgers apparently still have money to spend. Yet in this case, I suppose we ought to thank the Giants, no? It’s a weird feeling.
Dodgers Sign Dana Eveland
November 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm | Posted in Dana Eveland | 26 Comments
Per Dylan Hernandez, the Dodgers have signed LHP Dana Eveland to a minor league contract. Though he only just turned 27 a few weeks ago, Eveland’s been quite the journeyman in his short career. Originally drafted by the Brewers in 2002, he was traded to Arizona in 2006, where he lasted just one season before being sent to Oakland as part of the Dan Haren deal following 2007. In 2008 with the A’s, Eveland saw his only real major success, putting up a 4.09 FIP over 168 IP in 29 starts. He couldn’t replicate that in 2009 and spent most of the year in AAA, then was sent to Toronto in February of 2010. Eveland made 9 starts as a Jay this year, was traded to Pittsburgh in June, but was DFA’d after just 3 games and spent the rest of the year with the Pirates’ AAA club in Indianapolis. Phew!
Eveland’s not, you know, good. His fastball doesn’t top 90 often, and if he was that valuable he wouldn’t have ended up on 19 different teams before his age-27 year. Still, it’s a no-risk deal, and the Dodgers have had good success with guys like Chan Ho Park, Jeff Weaver, and Aaron Sele in the past on signings like that. For the low, low price of almost nothing, they’ve managed to bring in a guy who’s entering his prime, has seen action in 95 major league games, and does a good job of keeping the ball in the park (0.65 HR/9) and on the ground (50%). More than likely, he’s ticketed for depth in AAA rather than the rotation, but it’s depth worth having, and a deal worth making. Besides, to accept a minor league deal this early in the winter, Eveland – who’s from Palmdale, CA – must have really wanted to be a Dodger.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.











