6-4-2 — an Angels/Dodgers double play blog

You all know my biases about Bill Stoneman as a GM. If you don't, you can start reading here. The biggest charges I have against him are his tendencies to re-sign "franchise" players to absurd contracts, and the fact that he backed into signing Vlad. That is, his signings are too generous for the wrong players, and insufficiently aggressive on the right ones. This has lead to a pigeonhole principle problem. (Since I wrote that article, the Angels have extricated themselves at one spot by letting Glaus walk, but they still have a logjam at first, made worse by signing Kendry Morales.) Do the Angels even have a plan? I'm not sure that's possible to know.

As to DePodesta: well, I don't rightly know, but I may have been one of the bloggers Bill Shaikin dismissed for declaring DePodesta "as the winner of the [LoDuca/Penny/Mota/Encarnacion/Choi] trade on the basis of VORP alone". (I don't think I was quite that bad, but maybe in some wise that was the taste I left in people's mouths.) But DePo's trade -- and especially the acquisition of Steve Finley -- was entirely defensible from the standpoints of present and future needs. DePo got a lot of mileage, too, by picking up Jayson Werth for the spare part of Jason Frasor, not to mention shuffling the bench, acquiring Jason Grabowski for essentially nothing. Already in this offseason, he's made good pickups in C Mike Rose, Mike Edwards, and Jon Weber.

So what's not to like?

Yesterday, waiting for something to happen at the GM meetings, I was talking with Jon about DePodesta's signings, and slowly I began to realize that his biggest signing -- the midyear trade he made in June that jettisoned Paul LoDuca -- has yet to work out for the Dodgers. DePo missed out on the Kendall deal. If the scuttlebutt is right -- and they're already starting to admit it through semi-official channels -- Beltre won't come back. An aging Jeff Kent instead of Adrian Beltre? How do we read that? To whom do we assign the blame -- or give credit to? Is it Frank being absurdly cheap? Or is it wise because a "seven years and $90 million" contract is absurdly long and almost certain to be unearned for several years of that time? My personal feelings about the matter -- I would love to see Beltre resigned, but only to a contract that makes sense for the team -- are so ambivalent that it's hard to fault DePo no matter what happens.

But the lack of a plan B for the Dodgers at third is starting to recall an earlier omission, one that DePodesta still hasn't recovered from, namely, the hole at catcher. Originally hoping to snag veteran Charles Johnson to address the loss of LoDuca, the subsequent decision by Johnson to stay with the Rockies blew a hole through the bottom of the boat. Now, the Dodgers suddenly realize just how thin the market for quality third basemen really is; even Corey Koskie, who the Dodgers think might be signed for $6M/year, may not even be available as late as today.

It's a disturbing trend from a general manager most observers have rated as one of the better ones coming into the game, but the examples of failed backup plans at catcher and third base show something I thought about early this year: namely, that hiring DePodesta is an anti-sabermetric move. DePo might have a bunch of brilliant spreadsheets, Markov models out the gazoo, but the bottom line is that he has never actually been a GM before, and therefore, we can't judge him as a GM until he actually functions as one, in much the same way that you can't say a big athletic guy will necessarily be a good third baseman until he gets out and plays. So, I was pleasantly surprised to find Gregg Patton of the Riverside Press-Enterprise mentioned this weird dichotomy as well: suddenly, it's the Angels acting decisively and methodically to sign free agents in areas of need, while the Dodgers cut bait on the sidelines and watch while others sign their free agent escapees -- whose vacancies suddenly become new holes.

There are plenty of shopping days left before spring training, and lots of talent still out there.

But the additions of Finley and Kent look like the kind of safe, reasonable deals that you'd expect from teams steering away from the riskier, long-term contracts that big fish Beltran and Beltre will likely command.

With the Angels, you can understand it. With the Dodgers, you can't.

The simple fact that the Angels had such a fireworks show of an off-season last year - and re-signed Garret Anderson, as well - also meant they didn't have to go nuts again this off-season.

The Dodgers don't have that excuse. They sat out the market festivities last winter while the team's ownership was being transferred from News Corp. to the McCourts. It was tragic (in the baseball sense) timing. Lame-duck general manager Dan Evans had actually negotiated a deal for Vladimir Guerrero before he was told to can it, at which point the Angels swooped in and grabbed him on the cusp of his Most Valuable Player season.

The Dodgers, as it turned out, won the National League West without Guerrero. But if you're looking at which team you'd rather start a new season with right now - the Angels or the Dodgers - it's an easy choice. The Angels are in better shape, mainly because their best hitter is locked up at least through 2008, while the Dodgers' best hitter is trying to decide whose bank he wants to break.

Oddly, Finley wasn't pursued by the Dodgers, the team he finished the season with, despite a 36-homer season.

"I was disappointed," said Finley. "I thought we'd at least have a conversation."

Finley's agent, Tommy Tanzer, thought it was indicative of how the two organizations operate, saying the Angels were better at identifying needs and getting things done.

"They (the Dodgers) are rookies," he said, an obvious reference to first-year general manager Paul DePodesta. "They (the Angels) aren't."

I'm not condemning DePodesta here, not yet, anyway, but I am starting to get a little nervous. The Dodgers haven't resigned Beltre, and maybe won't? They let Jose Hernandez and Steve Finley walk? And Finley signed a reasonable contract with the Angels just down the street? And the Dodgers have no plan to deal with the increasing number of holes the team has? The ride just got a lot bumpier as the team's ability to Get Things Done comes daily into further question. Koskie is an answer at third, but he's not a good one. Let's hope we don't get more bad "answers" that amount to mere placeholders.