Ned Colletti Speaks
August 14, 2011 at 8:55 am | Posted in Ned Colletti | 38 Comments
As Hiroki Kuroda and the Dodgers attempt to complete a sweep of the even-worse-than-we-thought-they-were Astros today, Tom Hoffarth of the Los Angeles Daily News brings us a detailed Q&A session with Ned Colletti.
The whole thing is interesting to read and worth the click; some of the more interesting exchanges…
Q: So with the September call-ups, is there anything in particular you’re looking for? Mattingly has talked about not bringing too many guys up if they’re not going to play. What’s the strategy to that?
A: Well, we’ve got some guys in mind already. I probably shouldn’t give them to you right now. Most of them I want to see play. Maybe one or two I just want them to get acclimated. But I don’t usually do it without a purpose.
We’ve long figured that guys like A.J. Ellis, Jerry Sands, Ivan DeJesus, etc, will come up in September to flesh out the roster. But we’ve seen them already this year; Colletti mentions that “one or two” might come up “to get acclimated”. That infers that they’d be players who haven’t yet seen time in the bigs. With injuries and ineffectiveness causing a greater-than-usual amount of turnover this year, there’s not so many obvious candidates in AAA. Looking at the current 24-man Isotope active roster, 11 have played with the Dodgers at some point over the last two seasons; three (Dana Eveland, Roy Corcoran, & Roman Colon) have played with other teams. There’s also several guys who are in their late 20s and/or were signed from independent leagues this year, and aren’t considered prospects. The only Isotope who would seem to fit the criteria is newcomer Tim Federowicz – more on him later – but unless Rod Barajas or Dioner Navarro are miraculously moved in the next two weeks, starting his clock to be the team’s fourth catcher in September seems unlikely.
Looking down to AA Chattanooga, some possibilities might be 1B/OF Scott Van Slyke, who has had something of a breakout year, or impressive young pitchers Shawn Tolleson, Steven Ames, or possibly even Allen Webster.
Q: So there has to be frustration from you when you hear anyone say, “This trade makes no sense,” when there’s a reason why you can’t really explain all that goes into it, whether it’s impossible to do or you don’t want to give away any secrets?
A: Well, I never want to disparage anybody. And, sometimes it’s not just a disparaging situation. You know, we just made this deal with Boston and Seattle. People wonder how we could trade a local player, Trayvon Robinson. And I like Trayvon. But I have to look at the team on July 31, 2011. And on April 1, 2012. And on … I’ve got to take a short look and a long look.
But one of the key guys to acquire in that deal was a catcher (Tim Federowicz). We’ve got, maybe, a couple of prospect catchers in our system. One I think is a pretty good catch-and-throw guy. Another is a younger player that by all accounts is three years away, but that’s just showing up here, not an every-day contributor. So the kid we acquired, we feel, is within months of being up here. He’s got a great mind, he knows how to catch and catching to me is one of the most important positions on the field. He can catch and throw, he’s got some ability to hit and he’s got the right perspective and the right demeanor.
I couldn’t go into this offseason without more at that position. If you’re short a left fielder, you can take one of a couple of right fielders and move him over. If you’re short a third base or second base, you move an infielder around. But if you don’t have a catcher, you don’t have a catcher. That’s the one position you can’t invent out of thin air.
So, a few things here. Colletti claims that the Dodgers have two prospect catchers, the first being “a pretty good catch-and-throw guy,” the second being “a younger player that by all accounts is three years away.” Let’s check the organizational catching depth chart and try to identify who he’s referring to. As you can see, the pickings are pretty slim; you could argue that Ellis is the first guy, as he’s a solid defender without much of an offensive reputation, and he’s technically still a “prospect”, though at 30 and unable to get a shot ahead of the current two failures it’s unlikely that he’s even on Colletti’s radar. More likely, he’s referring to Matt Wallach, who isn’t much of a hitter (.230/.380/.345 at 25 in AA) yet has a good defensive reptuation.
As for the second guy, the “younger player who is three years away”, that’s a little tougher. You could possibly consider Pratt Maynard, drafted in the 3rd round this year, though you have to do better than hit .211 in rookie ball before you have any sort of MLB ETA. That’s more likely Gorman Erickson, having a solid season between Hi-A and AA this year while showing some nice pop.
Back to Federowicz, Colletti’s remarks on him are telling, especially the bit about how he is “within months of being up here.” He clearly sees him as someone who can contribute in 2012, though personally I think his offensive skills are questionable, and please don’t read too much into nine Albuquerque-fueled games since he arrived. Ellis and Federowicz in 2012? It’s not sexy, but it’s hard to think it could be worse than Barajas and Navarro, and there’s clearly not much available on the market.
Also, thousands of jokes were made at Colletti’s expense for his comment the day of the trade – reiterated here – that you can’t make a catcher by moving a player from another position, since the Dodgers alone have seen success doing just that with Carlos Santana and Russell Martin. But now that he explains it a little further, I think I understand what he was trying tot say a little more: you can do that, but it takes time. You could toss Andre Ethier into left field in time for next season if you wanted. You could put Juan Uribe or Jamey Carroll at any of a few infield spots. But if you’re converting someone to catcher, you need several years for that transition to happen, and you need to do it at a relatively early age. If you’re a team desperate for help next year, that’s not a viable option.
Q: Here’s another question from a reader – and here it is in its entirety:
“Explain to me – to all Dodger fans – why Juan Uribe was signed for any price, let alone the amount you overpaid him. I have been a Dodger fan since 1971, and never has any player been less qualified to be on this team than Uribe. This year proves that he played way over his head last season and you took the bait like a typical former Giants employee. Or do you still work for Frisco? Maybe you thought his World Series ring would make you a champion by proxy? Why in God’s name did you sign him, besides your unnatural attraction to former Giants? I know you probably won’t ask this, but I just saved myself three sessions with my therapist writing that question out and pretending that Colletti might actually read it.” And it’s signed “respectfully” from Kieran C. Scott, a fan from Placentia.
A: God bless Kieran. I understand his frustration, and mine is equal to his. Going into the offseason, we needed someone to play in the middle of the diamond and could be a run producer. We didn’t expect him to duplicate what he did last year, but certainly didn’t expect this type of season. We thought 15, 16 homers and 65, 70 RBIs which, when you look at his track record, isn’t that far off line with what he’s been able to accomplish. But I get it. Signing free agents is the most volatile, toughest thing to really gauge. All I can say is thank you for your fandom.
I included this one mostly because Hoffarth is awesome for asking it. And because when Colletti talked about what he expected from Uribe, one of the first items he brings up is “RBI”. Which, ugh. (Speaking of Uribe, Ben Bolch reports today that his recovery from a hip injury has stalled, and he will visit a specialist to try and identify if his injury is more severe. Surgery is an option, though sadly, it wouldn’t be expected to be career-threatening. Yes, I hesitated before writing that, and it sounds awful, but come on: like any of us want to see him on the field again.)
Hoffarth’s interview with Colletti goes on to touch quite a few off-the-field issues, particularly his relationship with his parents, and for all we say about how Colletti’s performance, there’s little doubt that he deeply cares about the work that he’s doing. That doesn’t mean he’s any good at it, of course, but it’s clear that he’s as troubled by this season as the rest of us are.
******
Unrelated: the Florida Marlins shipped off sometimes-controversial outfielder Logan Morrison to AAA today, despite the 23-year-old being almost indisputably their third-best hitter, reportedly for reasons beyond his recent slump at the plate. Though Morrison has had trouble keeping his mouth shut at times, the Marlins – on their third manager of the season and with one of the most reviled non-McCourt owners in the sport – clearly own much of the blame here, as this is hardly the first time they’ve been in the news for issues like this. By claiming that the demotion is for baseball issues, the Fish have cratered Morrison’s value, and he’s outspoken enough that it seems unlikely the relationship can be repaired. Morrison isn’t a star, but he’s got a career 114 OPS+ and doesn’t even turn 24 for several more weeks. Time to buy low? Fine by me.
38 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Funny how Colletti talks about us not having any catching prospects, however thats because Colletti traded all of our catchers away. I agree though, lets give Fedex and Ellis a shot in 2012, they cant be any worse than Big Rod and Navarro. actually im so desperate to see even halfway decent catchers, if they both hit .250, and dont throw the ball into center field then i would be happy with that.
that fan’s question about Uribe was hilarious. but Colletti’s response is fair, its true that no one thought Uribe would be this bad, but ughhhh.
good post Mike, very interesting read.
Comment by format— August 14, 2011 #
Let’s be fair here. He traded away Santana. The others aren’t missed.
Comment by Warren— August 14, 2011 #
Yeah but if the others were still around, FedEx wouldn’t be needed. He’s not a can’t miss prospect. He’s just a prospect at a position where the Dodgers have none.
Comment by Dave— August 14, 2011 #
even had uribe hit what ned had hoped he wouldn’t have been worth that damn contract. ned fails to address this at all, hoping the public wouldn’t notice that he overpaid for even what he hoped for. so that quote is just basically ned’s admission that he paid for what uribe did for one year and yes we were all right that there was no way he was gonna do that again.
Comment by sumdumfu— August 15, 2011 #
I’m trying to think of a “prospect” that is at least 3 years away… Dodgers have a kid in the DSL by the name of Josmar Cordero who is showing some promise. Although I wouldn’t say promise as it is in the DSL… Can’t be Griff Erickson because he’s our top hitting prospect (arguably) and looks like he’ll be ready to contribute next year if he continues to smash in AA.
Comment by Julio Nievas— August 14, 2011 #
Gotta keep in mind that Erickson was pretty awful at the plate in 2010 (.215/.309/.310 at Low-A ball despite being 22 years old), so even though he’s hitting pretty well this year he’ll probably need to do it again in 2012 to prove that this isn’t a fluke.
Comment by SamL— August 14, 2011 #
That “fan” question was priceless, and could have been written by any number of MSTI’s loyal readers. I couldn’t stop laughing here at work, and continue to chuckle now still thinking about it. Disappointed to see Morrison demoted to Triple-A (he’s on my fantasy team), but I agree that he’d be a great buy-low candidate. One other note on the Colletti interview: he says how he’s looking both short-term & long-term for the team, but how does that explain his trading away Santana? There were countless other players, PTBNL’s, etc, that could have been chosen in the Blake deal to cover the $2 million difference, but I guess he was looking short-term (instead of long-term) with both Martin & Santana. You’d also think that considering he knows the long process & how difficult quality catchers are to come by, he would’ve come up with any of a number of different ways to bridge the cost of getting Blake in that deal, as opposed to trading away years of work for, what at the time was, a 2 month rental.
Comment by Gibby's Limp— August 14, 2011 #
I think you may need to check your facts. The Santana – got – thrown – into – the – Blake – trade “fact” has been proven false already.
Comment by Jeff M.— August 14, 2011 #
What are you basing that on, this ESPN article?
http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/dodger-thoughts/post/_/id/2589/mccourt_interview
I never claimed this as “fact” (that was your wording) and the above article does very little to prove/disprove “The Santana-got-thrown-into-the-Blake-trade” as fact or fiction.
In any event, a good point in the article is, “Focusing on the $2 million distracts from the real issue, which is how well the Dodgers evaluate players and needs, whether it’s Santana for Blake, Andy LaRoche for Manny Ramirez, Tony Abreu for Jon Garland, and so on.”
Either Colletti doesn’t care enough about what he’s told by his talent evaluators & doesn’t trust them, maybe he doesn’t listen to them; or perhaps, it’s not even him (doubtful), and the scouts are just plain wrong. Ned speaks as though he recognizes that we have a need, yet it’s a need caused greatly by his mis-[general]-managing the Dodgers and their players.
Comment by Gibby's Limp— August 14, 2011 #
115 wRC+ at 24? I would pick him up only if we’re going to try Jerry Sands at 1st because I think I’d rather give the in-house prospect the chance especially considering what could be clubhouse issues.
Comment by Tony M. Fernández— August 14, 2011 #
Great post Mike. It’s sad to say that this whole catching issue would be mute had the Dodgers simply kept Russell Martin. I realize all of the frustrations with him last year and perhaps he did need a change of scenery but compared to what they are paying Barajas and Navarro that would be about equal to what Martin would make and say what you will he was a terrific defensive catcher, called a great game and caught every freaking day. Right now his .250 average would be a welcome site. Who would have known how much just letting him walk would cost the Dodgers.
Ned keeps making mistakes then compounding those mistakes by trying to fix them with worse mistakes. Ugh. The only catcher I can think of that he’s referring to is Gorman Erickson, Tony Jackson at ESPN calls him the “Catcher of the Future” in this article http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/6858905/los-angeles-dodgers-farm-system-worth-watching
What about JT Wise? I’m not sure how great of a “Catch and Throw” guy he is but at least he’s hitting.
Comment by Lasorda's Lair— August 14, 2011 #
Wise is okay, but he’s also 25 in A-ball and in a serious hitter’s league.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 14, 2011 #
Martin: BA .226, RBI 49, HR 13 Salary 4k
Barajas: BA .222, RBI 29, HR 11 Salary 3.2k
Navarro: BA .199, RBI 17, HR 5 Salary 1k
Martin hasn’t been much better than our options.
Comment by rb07— August 19, 2011 #
Come on…we’re not allowed to get excited at all about Fedex? I know that Albuquerque could turn Tony Gwynn jr. into Tony Gwynn sr., but still: 313/378/656 in his first two weeks at the highest level of the minor leagues? Even at zero gravity those would be pretty decent numbers.
Comment by SamL— August 14, 2011 #
ABQ + small sample size = reason for caution. If his numbers continue in AAA and after his call up (keep in mind he’ll also be playing against other sept. call ups which decrease the quality of the competition) then we can start to have reason to be excited.
Comment by Zach— August 14, 2011 #
Fair point. Still, I have a fear that even if Fedex does do well, nobody will give him the benefit of the doubt because of his being a shining example of (apparent) short-sighted buffoon-ness by Ned, via the Trayvon trade. (Which reminds me: maybe we should cool it just a LITTLE on the fire-and-brimstone reaction to that, since Trayvon is 2 for his last 17 as a Mariner and quite possibly got rushed to the majors before he was ready.)
Comment by SamL— August 14, 2011 #
FedEx could end up being the second coming of Mike Piazza, and it wouldn’t change the fact that Ned got destroyed on that trade. Trayvon at the moment of the trade was worth a hell of a lot more than FedEx at the moment of the trade and two throwaway pitchers.
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— August 15, 2011 #
Thanks for posting “Ned Colletti Speaks”. The interview almost humanizes him but I’d still rather see him behind the desk at Wrigley Field …but that ain’t happening anytime soon as Hendry will return to that cluster….on Chicago’s Northside. Ned and “Big Z” would make a great duo.
Comment by dan zielinski— August 14, 2011 #
Mike, My question
Will we get Zambrano this year or have to wait until next? I know he has a big salary, but I’m sure Ned would get the Cubs to pick up a big part of that
Comment by DAVID S— August 14, 2011 #
“Why would I ask the Cubs to pick up his salary? He’s a bargain and a proven veteran! We’ll just take a look at his MRI, and if there’s any rotator cuff damage, we’ll sign him to an additional 3 yrs/$47m.” – Ned
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 14, 2011 #
Sorry Ned, I guess that’s why you are the GM and not me.
Comment by DAVID S— August 14, 2011 #
hey mike, do you think it would’ve been a little bit better if the dodgers went for tsuyoshi nishioka instead of juan uribe this past offseason?
Comment by GP— August 14, 2011 #
In the sense that less money would have been wasted, sure, but Nishioka is hardly doing much to distinguish himself either.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 14, 2011 #
Nishioka broke his leg early in the season. Doubt we’ve seen a real example of what he can or cannot do.
Comment by Dave Pomerantz— August 15, 2011 #
So the going rate for a middle infielder that can hit 15 HRs and 60rbi is 3yrs @ $40M? Good god I’m glad we don’t have Tulo otherwise we would be giving him a contract that busts A-Rods.
Comment by west coast ram— August 14, 2011 #
Uribe got 3/$21m, not $40.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 14, 2011 #
…ha…..It must just feel like 40.
Comment by west coast ram— August 14, 2011 #
New rule: Ned can’t sign anyone named Juan.
Comment by SamL— August 14, 2011 #
Second.
Comment by Dustin Nosler— August 15, 2011 #
Ned proves he doesn’t learn from his mistakes.
Exhibit A–His mantra about “if you don’t have a catcher, you don’t have a catcher” is what caused him to overpay for Barajas and to sign Navarro. AJ Ellis could fill the backup role nicely, so you only needed one other catcher…and his name was Santana.
Exhibit B–Sign fat players who obviously are more devoted to tortillas than baseball…first Andruw, then Uribe.
Exhibit C–Ignore medical records and sign an over 30 pitcher with shoulder issues…maybe he did learn a little with Schmidt, or he would have hand Garland four guaranteed years.
And, one more thing about this “if you don’t have a catcher” crap. How many times have my Dodgers had a switch hitting outfielder with speed and power? (not to mention a guy who is from LA and loves the Blue>)
Comment by SamAdams— August 14, 2011 #
For Ned to learn from his mistakes, he would first have to acknowledge his mistakes. I don’t recall that ever being done verbally.
Comment by lWerthFan— August 14, 2011 #
My problem with Uribe from the start is that he came from San Francisco, they win a World Series which left a sour taste in my mouth but leave it to Ned too pour salt in the wound by picking up their crumbs.
Comment by Robert Jimenez— August 14, 2011 #
Wow…just read the whole interview and it’s clear that Ned didn’t mention Erickson when he was discussing the organization’s minor league catchers. He was talking about Wallach and the 2011 draftee. Good God…if Erickson keeps tearing up AA, is some other team going to swoop in and steal him by offering Ned a crappy 35-year old PVL, just like in 2008 when Cleveland stole Santana by giving us two months of Casey Blake? Having this moron as our GM is soooo depressing :(
Comment by The Dude Abides— August 15, 2011 #
My guess is that he’s thinking of Griff as a 1B moving forward, therefore excluding him from the catcher conversation.
Comment by Nolij— August 16, 2011 #
The catcher I thought Ned was talking about, if not 2011 draftee Pratt Maynard, is 20 year old Jan Vazquez, a native of Puerto Rico that we converted from the infield upon being drafted in 2009.
CA – Jan Vazquez – 5’10″ 165 – S/R – 04/29/91 – Drafted: 2009 (6th Round)
18 60 7 20 4 0 1 10 4 17 1 0 .333 .394 .450 .844
GP-AB-R-H-2B-3B-HR-RBI-BB-SO-SB-CS-AVG-OBP-SLG-OPS
Comment by Bluefan— August 15, 2011 #
[...] Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness picks apart a recent interview with Dodgers GM Ned Colletti. [...]
Pingback by Baseball Blogs Weigh In: Thome, Draft, Angels | Forex News— August 19, 2011 #
[...] a while but just required Rod Barajas to be healthy first, I suppose Federowicz is who Ned Colletti was referring to when he said at least one prospect was coming up to get acclimated.) Other possibilities could be [...]
Pingback by Dee Gordon’s Rehab Delays Are Going to Save Eugenio Velez’ Pursuit of Imfamy « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 29, 2011 #
[...] value was utilized fully. Though we’ve never doubted his passion or humanity – made clear in a rare August interview – we’ve also never doubted that one of the brightest moments of his tenure was that [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: Management « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— November 25, 2011 #