Monthly Archives: September 2011

Dodgers Crush Pirates, Pirates Relegated to AAA

Posted on by 35 Replies

Here’s how ridiculous today’s 15-1 destruction of the hapless Pirates was: James Loney went 5-5 with a double, driving in three… and by the WPA (Win Percentage Added) chart, that career-best hit total was merely the fourth-most valuable Dodger performance of the afternoon. Jerry Sands, who had all but claimed a role on next year’s team with his recent hot streak, cemented his claim with four hits (including a three-run homer) while Matt Kemp, continuing his rampage towards the MVP, finished a triple short of the cycle; Dee Gordon (two singles and a triple) and Juan Rivera (two singles and a double) joined Kemp in having three hits on the day.

It should be noted that the Pirates are absolutely atrocious, since Brad Lincoln‘s four-out effort was the third consecutive time that a Pittsburgh starter failed to make it even three full innings, and they’re 14-33 since the beginning of August. Aside from the litany of helpless pitchers they trotted out – eight, tying the franchise record – Rivera’s double really ought to have been an out, since center fielder Alex Presley and right fielder Xavier Paul (who had two hits on the day, good to see from an old friend) stared at each other as it fell right between them in right center.

Still, Pirate-aided acceleration aside, this was a game worthy of Fan Appreciation Day, and the offensive outburst shouldn’t obscure what was a decent outing by Chad Billingsley. We’ll not go past “decent” because it still took him 98 pitches to get through five innings, but he still struck out five while allowing just four hits and one run, and considering how poor his last few starts have been, that counts as progress. With Billingsley most likely receiving just one more start this season, there’s only so much he can do to turn the tide going into the offseason, and this was a small but positive step.

Back to Loney, with only nine games left, I’ve begun to change my tune. No, I don’t necessarily think he’s “for real”, and there’s still a very good argument to be made that he should be non-tendered, but I think we’ve reached the point where the conversation is mostly going to be for the sake of argument: whether any of us like it or not, he’s going to get tendered a contract for 2012.

With the win, the Dodgers are now back at .500 (76-76) again.  For a team that was once 14 games under in July, it’s a notable achievement.

Hey Big Spender, Buy Prince Fielder

Posted on by 44 Replies


In just about every conversation about the 2012 Dodgers recently, the topic of “needing a big bat” has come up. Fans say it all the time. Ned Colletti even said it earlier this week. Of course, doing so is easier said than done; aside from the big two of Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder, the list of available free-agent bats this winter is sparse, full of past-their-prime guys who may be decent additions to a good lineup, yet are hardly “the big acquisition”.

I say “aside from Pujols and Fielder” because, despite the visions of sugarplums and fairies Dodger fans get in their heads when they think of non-tendering the infuriating James Loney – and believe me, I hear from the “let’s get Pujols/Fielder!” crowd a lot – and pairing superstar Matt Kemp and a healthy Andre Ethier with their new first base toy, the ownership mess makes that all but impossible.

Or does it? ESPN’s Jayson Stark argues today that it might make such a splash even more likely:

They’re headed for a 17.5 percent attendance plummet, the largest of any team in this sport. And you don’t need to be a descendant of Walter O’Malley to understand why.

These people are appalled by the owner. That’s essentially why. So to lure them back, the Dodgers realistically have two choices:

A) Frank McCourt can take the hint and give up his surreal battle to keep hanging out in the owner’s box, or B), the Dodgers need to do Something Big to show what’s left of their fan base that, contrary to popular belief, they’re still trying — and, whatever that is, it had better lead to a whole lot of winning on the field, in a hurry.

Well, it’s clear by now that McCourt never got that “it’s-time-to-get-out” memo. So that leaves Plan B. If Frank McCourt really intends to hang onto his team and make this work, what other choice does he have?

Now, it probably comes as very little surprise to you that I don’t really buy this. If they had money, they’d best be throwing gobs of it at Kemp and Clayton Kershaw. Still, it’s a fun thought exercise – and in the midst of a four-game set against Pittsburgh, this is what we have right now – and recent hot streak aside, if you’re serious about upgrading the offense, you can’t possibly be entertaining the idea of giving Loney $6-$7m next year.

So let’s tackle the two major issues: #1, can they afford a Pujols or Fielder? #2, and infinitely more interesting, should they, even if they can?

1. Can they actually afford either?

As the great Reverend Lovejoy once said, “short answer, yes with an if, long answer, no with a but.” Both first basemen will be shooting for something in the $25m annual value range, with Fielder likely getting something under and Pujols perhaps at or more, if only because of his historical stature. The fact that traditional big spenders like the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Tigers, Angels, and others are largely set at first base might help keep bidding wars down.

For all the fun we had with the bi-weekly “hey, you think McCourt will make payroll” game earlier this season, the Dodgers still had a payroll of roughly $100m this year, plus another $15m or so in dead money to guys like Manny Ramirez, Juan Pierre, Jason Schmidt, and Andruw Jones. (Those figures aren’t 100% exact, but I’m painting in broad strokes here – for the purposes of this conversation, close enough.) That’s not as high as it should be for a team in Los Angeles, but nor is it the level of Tampa Bay or Kansas City. Given that the MLB loan McCourt secured is supposedly enough to last at least into next season, and that MLB claimed it would be as close to business as usual as possible, there may be some room to make moves.

Now, the Dodgers do have some money coming off the books. Casey Blake, Jonathan Broxton, Vicente Padilla, Jon Garland, Rafael Furcal,and Jamey Carroll combined to make $32m this season. (Most of this information is coming from TBLA‘s great payroll sheet, by the way.) None are expected to return, though the group does have about $6m in option buyouts and deferrals to deal with, for a savings of about $26m. Assuming you’re not bringing Loney back and factoring in both hefty arbitration bumps for Kemp, Kershaw, & Ethier and back-loaded increases for Juan Uribe, Matt Guerrier, Chad Billingsley, and Ted Lilly, the 2012 commitment is currently at something like $78m, plus $14m in continued dead money. (Upside: no more Schmidt!)

Assuming that any large contract the Dodgers would sign would almost certainly be back-loaded, it’s in theory possible. Figuring that low-salary 0-3 types like Javy Guerra, Tim Federowicz, Dee Gordon, Kenley Jansen and others would play larger roles next year, you could start the first year of a contract off with, say, $16m, allowing you an extremely small amount of breathing room to fill out the roster. You could also attempt to sign long-term deals with Kemp, Kershaw, or Ethier that lowered the 2012 commitment while extending them more guaranteed money over the length of the deal. That’s both unlikely – imagine the Dodgers signing two big deals this winter – and not always the best strategy, as we’ll see. Or you could look into trading Ethier for prospects, which is again unlikely, particularly as his value is at its lowest as he rehabs from knee surgery. Besides, spending from a team in bankruptcy isn’t completely unprecedented; just look at the Rangers acquiring Cliff Lee and others last year.

So is it possible? If you skimp in a bunch of other areas, if Pujols or Fielder is willing to take a somewhat lower salary in the first year, if the bankruptcy and court messes don’t end with a drastic reduction of payroll, and if McCourt goes with Stark’s plan of “I have to do something to win the fans back”, sure, why not. As the good Reverend says, “yes with an if”. Lots and lots of “ifs”.

2) If they can, should they?

Here’s where it gets fun, and here’s where I think my opinion will differ from a lot of casual fans. You ask the average Dodger fan on the street, “do you want to see Prince Fielder next year?” and you can imagine that the response would be mildly positive. And I have to admit, the thought of Kemp & Fielder/Pujols hitting 3-4 on a team that has Kershaw leading the staff is pretty tasty. That trio alone gets you pretty far.

But as you saw in the first part, that’s about all you get. Say goodbye to another year of Hiroki Kuroda. You probably can’t afford to chance several million on tendering Hong-Chih Kuo. Unless Juan Rivera and Rod Barajas are willing to play for the minimum, they’re gone too. That means you’re filling out the roster with a lot of youth, and while that’s not necessarily bad, it’s very risky because it leaves you with very little depth. It means that Gordon and Justin Sellers are probably your double-play combination. It means that Uribe has to be healthy and contribute at third base, and Jerry Sands has to nail down left field. With all of those guys in the lineup, that makes your bench Russ Mitchell and friends. It means that beyond Kershaw, you have to pray that Lilly and Chad Billingsley regain consistency, and beyond them? The back of your rotation is filled by untested youngsters like Nathan Eovaldi & Allen Webster and the Dana Eveland/John Ely retreads of the world. The one place where this isn’t a problem is in the bullpen, which was already largely staffed by youth like Guerra, Jansen, and Josh Lindblom, has Guerrier returning, always seems to pick up at least one Mike MacDougal-type, and has reinforcements on the way in Shawn Tolleson, Steven Ames, and more.

Is that worth it? I don’t know that it is; investing such a big chunk of your payroll into one player rarely ends well. Look at the Twins, who gave Joe Mauer $184m starting this season; injured, he’s hit just .287/.360/.368 with three homers as Minnesota has sunk to last place.

Look at Cot’s list of the 27 $100m+ contracts. If you eliminate the ones that are less than halfway through (not enough time to judge, fortunately for Ryan Howard, Jayson Werth and Carl Crawford) and the ones signed by the Yankees (who are playing a completely different sport), you’re left with thirteen deals:

Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10)
Manny Ramirez, $160,000,000 (2001-08)
Todd Helton, $141,500,000 (2003-11)
Johan Santana, $137,500,000 (2008-13)
Alfonso Soriano, $136,000,000 (2007-14)
Vernon Wells, $126,000,000 (2008-14)
Barry Zito, $126,000,000 (2007-13)
Mike Hampton, $121,000,000 (2001-08)
Carlos Beltran, $119,000,000 (2005-11)
Ken Griffey Jr., $116,500,000 (2000-08)
Kevin Brown, $105,000,000 (1999-2005)
Carlos Lee, $100,000,000 (2007-12)
Albert Pujols, $100,000,000 (2004-10)

Five of the thirteen can be termed as outright disasters – Soriano, Wells, Zito, Hampton, and Lee. (That’s not to suggest that the players never provided any value to their teams, just that it was in no way commensurate to the value of their contracts.) Griffey, Brown, and Santana had their moments after signing but their return on investment was largely ruined by injuries. (Yes, this is more “subjective” than “scientific” – I could equate WAR to dollars – but I think these are pretty accurate categories). That leaves us with Rodriguez, Manny, Beltran, and Pujols. All four performed at a high level over the length of their deals, though Rodriguez’ contract was such a crushing weight that the Rangers were forced to trade him after just three seasons.

That’s not exactly a great rate of return, and the risk is magnified even further when discussing Pujols and Fielder. Pujols is unquestionably one of the all-time greats; in addition to his feats at the plate, he is an excellent fielder and baserunner, two attributes which should not go unnoticed. He’s also turning 32 in January, and you’ll find more than a few people in and around baseball who still believe that he’s actually a year or two older than that, as so many Latin prospects turn out to be. He’s also having one of the worst years of his career while dealing with his first serious injury. To be fair, I could hardly type that last line with a straight face, since “the worst year of his career” still has him leading the NL in homers and has an OPS over .900  after a miraculous return from an injured wrist. Still, he’s likely going to end up at around 5 WAR, the first time he’s been under 7.5 since 2002. Even the great Pujols is not immune from the passage of time, and it’s hard to argue that giving him a massive contract that mostly encompasses his mid- and late-30s isn’t terrifying.

Fielder’s problem is not age, since he only turned 27 in May. A long-term deal for him would be something like his 28-35 seasons, which sounds much better. However, unlike Pujols, he offers little beyond the bat, as he’s a poor runner and mediocre fielder, giving back much of the value he provides at the plate. He’s your typical “bad body” player, conservatively listed at 268 pounds, and so whomever he signs with probably needs to have the DH option available down the road, because when he slows down, it’s going to be ugly. His youth helps me look past that to a certain extent, since you’re buying a player who is about to enter his prime, and he doesn’t even have the crippling platoon splits that so many lefties do.

For me, it all comes down to flexibility. Signing either – and if pressed, I suppose I’d have to go with Fielder’s youth and lack of secondary skills over Pujols’ all-around game but advancing age – really ties you up in other areas. It kills the overall depth of your team. It makes it difficult to find the cash to sign the guys you already have to big deals. If it works, it can really work, but if not – and the history isn’t great – it can really hamstring your team for years. We should all know by now that attempting to buy wins on the free agent market is the most inefficient way to do so, and especially when we’re talking about dollar figures this high.

That’s all if there’s actually money for such a move. Which, come on. The fantasy I laid out above is one thing, but seeing this happen in reality? Not until the McCourts move on.

Even Arizona Writers Think Kershaw’s Ejection Was Ridiculous

Posted on by 76 Replies

On July 31, Gerardo Parra hit two dingers in Dodger Stadium, the second of which was a bomb off of Hong-Chih Kuo that Parra longingly admired. On Tuesday, after Kuo unleashed a rocket towards Parra’s head – and with Kuo’s control problems this year, who the hell knows if that was intentional or not – Parra took Kuo deep again, once again took his sweet time to watch it, and was on the receiving end of some verbal abuse from Clayton Kershaw and A.J. Ellis.

Got all that? So as you’ve no doubt heard, Kershaw, working on a one-hit shutout in the fifth on Wednesday (with the one hit, of course, being from Parra), nailed Parra on the elbow and was immediately ejected by home plate umpire Bill Welke, along with Dodger manager Don Mattingly. Now, I hardly need to recap for you what came next: the Dodgers insisted that it wasn’t intentional, because why would Kershaw do something that would so obviously get him tossed out of the game and impact his Cy Young chances, and because Parra was leaning over the plate and did little to avoid the pitch. The Diamondbacks insisted it was, because of the history with Parra and because Kershaw’s been so good that it’s hard to argue it was a coincidence that the ball just got away from him with Parra, of all people, hitting.

Borrowed from Chad Moriyama, you can make your own call:

The truth is probably somewhere in between, with my opinion leaning towards “Kershaw probably meant to send a message, not hit him, and Parra just stood there,” but to be honest, I don’t really care too much. I’m sure Bill Plaschke is furiously fapping away his latest story about how Kershaw has earned respect – you know, because everyone thought he was a joke before for only contending for the Cy Young at 23 – but it really doesn’t matter. If there is one unquestionable bad guy, it’s home plate umpire Welke, who wildly overreacted by immediately tossing Kershaw on a questionable call. (Update: when I wrote the line about Plaschke, he had not published an article this morning, and I was mostly joking. But just a few minutes ago, up went his piece, calling out Kershaw’s “toughness” and “leadership”. Predictable Bill is predictable.)

Now as you can imagine, Dodger fans were incensed. Of course they were. They’re biased for the Dodgers, even if only subconsciously, and that’s fine – that’s half the point of being a fan. What really entertains me, though, is that even people on the Arizona side thought the ejection was ridiculous:

Nick Piecoro, Arizona Republic:

Uh, seriously?

Tyler Bassett, ArizonaSports.com:

That is why I think baseball got it wrong. You simply, absolutely cannot throw a pitcher out of a game unless you are 100% convinced he has intentionally thrown at someone. Even if that’s the case it’s iffy unless he specifically went head hunting.

It’s a 2-0 game. Kershaw had just thrown the first pitch for a strike. He was in the middle of a one-hitter and going for his 19th win.

Mark Grace & Daron Sutton, Arizona broadcasters (from the Bassett story):

Grace could not believe what he was watching. Both him and Sutton were stunned Kershaw was being thrown out of the game.

“Maybe the game has passed me by,” Grace said in amazement.

When even the media from the team that greatly benefits from the ejection think it’s crazy, you know you’re doing something wrong. Of course, umpires greatly overstepping their bounds is hardly a new idea in baseball. As for Kershaw, he’s likely to get two more starts this season whether or not he is suspended, and thanks to the great work of Josh Lindblom and Kenley Jansen, he still walked away with his 19th win last night. Not that it matters; Roy Halladay‘s 8th complete game, a 1-0 shutout of Houston yesterday, seems to only bolster his case as front-runner.

Farewell to the Misunderstood Jonathan Broxton

Posted on by 54 Replies


Not that anyone ever really expected otherwise, but the Dodgers officially declared Jonathan Broxton out for the season earlier this week, after four months of attempting to rehab a right elbow injury left him without enough time to make it back on the mound before the season ends. Broxton, the longest-tenured Dodger of the current crew by about six weeks over Hong-Chih Kuo, is a free agent after the season, and while he could conceivably return, his Dodger career is almost certainly over.

For many fans, that will be welcome news. Remember, Broxton is the guy who lacked enough heart, testicles, intestines, earlobes, eyelashes, kidneys, toes, ribs, and whatever other organs give you the ability to strike out major league hitters in the late innings. He’s the guy who ran screaming from Matt Stairs and the rest of the Phillies in the playoffs like he was a doomed actress in a B-level horror movie. He’s the wimp without the mental acuity to force the fielders behind him to catch the damn ball. He’s the pitcher whose frame was so large that his 2010 collapse could have only meant he didn’t pay enough attention to his conditioning, since he was obviously a 145-pound beanpole when he arrived in 2005. He’s the disappointment who blew nearly 30% of his career save chances, and I don’t want to hear your “logic” about how “he wasn’t a closer for most of his first three-plus years and was in position to only receive blown saves, not successful ones.” Jonathan Broxton: heartless, gutless, failure.

This is, of course, stupid.

If this is the end for Broxton, he’s going to walk away as one of the most successful and dominating relievers in Dodger history. Among Dodgers with as many career innings as he has, his 11.55 K/9 mark is by far the best, more than a full strikeout ahead of Eric Gagne‘s chemically-aided 10.38. His K/BB of 3.09 is fifth best, ahead of Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, and Don Sutton, and he’s also on the top ten as far as the fewest hits per nine allowed.

From his debut on July 29, 2005 through June 26, 2010, Broxton was consistently excellent. In 349.2 innings over 341 games, he struck out a whopping 468 batters, allowing opponents to hit just .209/.285/.300 against him. For those afraid he’d wilt in the ninth inning, he actually got better once he was promoted to the closer’s job after Takashi Saito‘s injury in July of 2008; from then until June 26, 2010, he struck out 204 in 138 innings and held the opposition to a microscopic line of .185/.258/.242. For the better part of two years, Broxton was either the absolute best closer in baseball or something very close to it.

That’s not to say there weren’t trying times, of course. The go-ahead homer he served up to Matt Stairs in Game 4 of the 2008 NLCS was brutal, though the pain of that moment often obscures the fact that he had retired 15 of the previous 16 hitters he faced in that postseason and that he bounced back to finish the inning and the next one without any damage. Faced with the Phillies once again in Game 4 of the 2009 NLCS, he again was unable to hold the lead, though he had allowed just one earned run in 5.2 previous innings that postseason, and it was his only blown save of a postseason that had every single closer other than Mariano Rivera blow at least one. Tough losses to be sure; evidence of anything other than an excellent pitcher being something less than godly and perfect, no. Clearly, neither loss affected him too much, as he started 2010 better than ever, allowing just three earned runs with a 48/5 K/BB in the first 33 games of the year.

And then Joe Torre happened. It’s been over a year since Torre forced Broxton to throw 48 pitches in a loss to the Yankees while using him for the fourth time in five days, and it’s mind-blowing to me that there’s even the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind that the collapse of Broxton’s entire career was caused in that week.

Broxton, 7/29/05 – 6/26/10: .585 OPS against, 3.57 K/BB
Broxton, 6/27/10 – 5/3/11: .892 OPS against, 1.09 K/BB, 4 months on DL

Sure, Broxton’s got a busted body part, but it’s not his guts: it’s his arm, shredded by the usual Torre overuse. Or does the obvious downward spiral on his velocity chart not make it clear?

Even in the heat of the moment, we could see what Torre had done:

In the 9th, Broxton was brought on to pitch for the 4th time in 5th days, two of which were for more than one inning, despite the Dodgers having a four run lead. As Eric Stephen will happily tell you, “the last 3 [games were] with win expectancies of 95.5%, 98.8%, and 98.8%” when he entered. The point being, those are the kinds of situations in which you bring on your lesser relievers, at least to start. Even if you don’t trust them – as Torre clearly doesn’t, other than Hong-Chih Kuo – if they run into trouble, then sure, bring on the big man. And no, I’m not suggesting that Broxton should onlybe brought into save situations (which he hasn’t seen since June 9) but you have to measure his usage a little more carefully, especially in all of these non-vital situations.

So when the lead was pushed to four on Rafael Furcal‘s 8th inning double, that’s when you pick up the phone to the bullpen and say, “you’ve pitched enough lately, Jonathan, especially yesterday. Sit down and we’ll let the other guys pick you up, and only bring you in if there’s a disaster.”

But no, Torre brings in the clearly overworked Broxton, and we’re supposed to act surprised that one of the best teams in baseball fouled off pitch after pitch, dropped in hit after hit, and patiently drew walks. Broxton eventually tossed 48 pitches, topping his previous career high of 44 set on July 3, 2006.

If there’s any takeaway from this, it’s this: Broxton has thrown 99 pitches since June 23rd. By comparison, the Dodger starting rotation since then has these counts: Kershaw 101 (tonight 6/27), Kuroda 110 (6/26), Padilla 111 (6/25), Haeger 102 (6/24), Ely 97 (6/23). Because apparently, Broxton is a starting pitcher now.

Of course, that’s not how many saw it. “Gutless Broxton again,” you’d hear constantly. “Can’t do it on the big stage against the best teams,” went the refrain. Nevermind, of course, that Broxton had easily shut down the same Yankees for 1.1 innings the night before. Or that his previous outings had all come against some of the better teams in both leagues, including the Angels three times, the Red Sox, the Cardinals twice, the Braves twice, and in Colorado twice, and he hadn’t allowed an earned run in over a month. Broxton got the next four games off after this stretch, but he was never the same again – and thanks to Torre, he might never make it back. (Though, as friend of the blog Jay Jaffe reminded me, Broxton did himself no favors by concealing the extent of his elbow woes – and claiming this May that he “did not plan on being more forthcoming” in the future.)

I’m not sure where Broxton will end up – smart money is somewhere a lot closer to his wife and child in Georgia, if not for the Braves specifically – but it almost certainly won’t be back in Los Angeles. Here’s to the man who dominated for years despite all of his supposedly missing body parts.

Ned Colletti Thinks the Dodgers Are Close to Contending, Because Of Course He Does

Posted on by 55 Replies

While I was away for the weekend, we saw Clayton Kershaw dominate the Giants as usual, Dana Eveland do his best to match Kershaw’s outing, and Hiroki Kuroda finish the series by tossing out his second consecutive lousy start, possibly as a result of recurring neck pain. We learned that Andre Ethier is finally getting knee surgery on Wednesday and that contrary to all previous reports, there will be not be any further callups to bolster the roster for the final weeks.

Yet what interests me the most, and what I heard more about from readers than anything else that happened this weekend, were Ned Colletti’s comments that he doesn’t think the roster is going to need a whole lot of work to be competitive in 2012. From the Dylan Hernandez story:

General Manager Ned Colletti and Manager Don Mattingly don’t think the Dodgers have to overhaul their roster next season.

“I don’t think we’re that far away,” Colletti said.

The initial fan response to that was predictable. This is a team which was flawed from the start and was flirting with the depths of team history barely two months ago. Does an admittedly-impressive-but-ultimately-meaningless hot streak in August and September suddenly turn this team into a contender? Of course it doesn’t. How, people asked, could Colletti be so blind as to think this was a team that could compete with the Philadelphias and Atlantas of the league?

The answer, as it always is, is to never take anything Colletti – or any other high-ranking executive – says at face value. What did we expect him to say? “Boy, these guys sure do suck. Can’t wait to clear them out and start over next year.” Of course not. This is the team Colletti has personally put together over the last few years, and the ownership situation makes his future tenuous at best. It’s absolutely in his best interest to put out the vision that this was always a good team, torpedoed early by a wave of injuries and perhaps lacking that one impact bat – a deficit which he, of course, personally helped fix by picking up Juan Rivera.

That’s in no way meant to bash Colletti, since part of any executive’s job (in baseball or out) is to project a sense of calm and leadership, not to stir the pot any more than is necessary. It’s something that Colletti hasn’t always done a good job of in the past. It’s best for him, best for the players, and best for trying to drive next year’s season ticket sales to make people think that something special is brewing, even if that’s only remotely the truth.

Besides, on a practical level, it doesn’t even make sense. Regardless of how Colletti feels about the current roster, it’s still a collection that has offensive veterans like Jamey Carroll, Aaron Miles, Tony Gwynn, Rod Barajas, and Rivera without contracts for next year. Rafael Furcal is already long-gone and Casey Blake, for all intents and purposes, is too. Prospects Dee Gordon, Justin Sellers, Jerry Sands, and Tim Federowicz have all shown promise but none have unquestionably nailed down a job, though that is still likely to change. James Loney, recent play aside, is still very possibly a non-tender, plus while Ethier is unlikely to move, he is going to be coming off surgery and is clearly unhappy with his situation. And can you really count on anything from Juan Uribe? On the pitching side, Jonathan Broxton, Jon Garland, and Vicente Padilla are all unlikely to be back, Mike MacDougal is a free agent, Rubby De La Rosa is likely out for most or all of next year, and it’s anyone’s guess as to what Kuroda will do.

While some of the players listed above will return, the majority won’t, and that means there will be changes. Possibly a good deal of them, particularly in the infield, and Colletti notes that another bat is a big need:

Pointing to how the July acquisition of Juan Rivera transformed the pitching-heavy Dodgers’ previously-impotent offense, Colletti and Mattingly said their top priority this winter is to land a run producer.

“It has to be the right bat,” Colletti said. “If the right bat’s not available, then it’s got to be somebody else.”

Of course, just exactly what that means is a topic of conversation we’ll get into heavily in the offseason. We have absolutely no idea what the McCourt mess means for the 2012 payroll, making it unlikely that the Dodgers are in the Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder game – and you could make a solid argument that even if the team wasn’t in bankruptcy court, $100m+ contracts like that aren’t the best use of resources anyway, particularly with the contract situations of Matt Kemp, Ethier, and Kershaw quickly becoming serious issues.

There’s a solid core here, and we’ve seen it come out in recent weeks. Yet Colletti’s media-friendly statements aside, expect the 25-man Opening Day roster next season to look a whole lot different than it did this season – and that’s not a bad thing.