Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, August 08, 2005 |
On A Clear Day, You Can't See October
Jon notes the Dodgers are 9-13 since the All Star Break, or a .409 winning percentage. With 51 games remaining until season's end, assuming they do no better than that -- reasonable, I think -- that puts them at a pace for a 71-91 season, the worst since 1992.
The Chronicler takes a playful swipe at doomsayers who believe the A's will continue their recent insane hotness. Count me out of that camp, but as Rich noted in an e-mail earlier today, now that the A's are tied with the Angels, they don't have to go 22-2 or any such similar ridiculous winning streaks; all they have to be is a little bit better than the Angels, which, given Bill Stoneman's peculiar bad offseason choices, is all too plausible. That is to say, I'm steeling myself for a sweep by Oakland. I only hope I'm wrong.
Update: It's probably worth noting that Matt Welch has already trod this ground before, and come to entirely different conclusions. Others had different opinions.
Comments:
1-6: completely agreed.
7: total mistake, but you expected me to say nothing different, right? And who cares about the number of years the Cards signed him for; the Angels could probably have had him for $6M/2 years, which would have been about perfect. An Eckstein/Izturis platoon at SS would have been entirely workable. Heck, Eckstein at DH and leading off would have given the Angels a better leadoff man than what they have in Figgins (whose OBP isn't nearly high enough for that job).
8: I actually think Yan has some redeeming qualities, though he's no Ben Weber ca. 2002. He's overpriced for what he brings to the table, but the Angels at least recognized that they were starting the season short a reliever or two.
9: Agreed, though only in retrospect; I figured at the time it represented a defensive upgrade (it still does, by the way) over Anderson.
I think the reason Stoneman's offseason moves have attracted such venom is because the two starters he's brought in have been total busts, or very nearly so. And don't forget this: with rare exceptions (Mo Vaughn for Kevin Appier; Adam Kennedy [yay] and Kent Bottenfield [boo] for Jim Edmonds, under duress), Stoneman can't execute a trade to save his life. In this, he reminds me of Buzzie Bavasi who would never do such a thing, simply because he could never get them right.
Despite his extreme conservatism with trades, there is still a case to be made that Stoneman is the better GM of the two Los Angeles franchises (insert geographical snicker for one of them), and that is that DePodesta's 2005 team, more truly his than the 2004 team that won the division, has been wracked with injuries, a few of which were foreseeable. Some of it also amounts to unclutch hitting from various parties (Bradley, who's lately been awful period, and especially J.D. Drew, never good as a Dodger at all in this department). But you can see a lot of holes here, and their presence makes DePodesta -- at least in the short term -- somewhat suspect as a GM.
7: total mistake, but you expected me to say nothing different, right? And who cares about the number of years the Cards signed him for; the Angels could probably have had him for $6M/2 years, which would have been about perfect. An Eckstein/Izturis platoon at SS would have been entirely workable. Heck, Eckstein at DH and leading off would have given the Angels a better leadoff man than what they have in Figgins (whose OBP isn't nearly high enough for that job).
8: I actually think Yan has some redeeming qualities, though he's no Ben Weber ca. 2002. He's overpriced for what he brings to the table, but the Angels at least recognized that they were starting the season short a reliever or two.
9: Agreed, though only in retrospect; I figured at the time it represented a defensive upgrade (it still does, by the way) over Anderson.
I think the reason Stoneman's offseason moves have attracted such venom is because the two starters he's brought in have been total busts, or very nearly so. And don't forget this: with rare exceptions (Mo Vaughn for Kevin Appier; Adam Kennedy [yay] and Kent Bottenfield [boo] for Jim Edmonds, under duress), Stoneman can't execute a trade to save his life. In this, he reminds me of Buzzie Bavasi who would never do such a thing, simply because he could never get them right.
Despite his extreme conservatism with trades, there is still a case to be made that Stoneman is the better GM of the two Los Angeles franchises (insert geographical snicker for one of them), and that is that DePodesta's 2005 team, more truly his than the 2004 team that won the division, has been wracked with injuries, a few of which were foreseeable. Some of it also amounts to unclutch hitting from various parties (Bradley, who's lately been awful period, and especially J.D. Drew, never good as a Dodger at all in this department). But you can see a lot of holes here, and their presence makes DePodesta -- at least in the short term -- somewhat suspect as a GM.
He's counting his $50. And I don't care what Eckstein does the next two years. No matter how bad he declines, it would have been a lot easier to cut him then and eat what was left of his contract than it will to cut Cabrera.
You bet, so to speak. Two rounds of an alcoholic beverage(s) of your choice at a facility to be mutually agreed upon not to exceed $50.
BTW, I don't see a resurgence of the Twins happening at all; as with the A's, their offense has rested heavily on rookies hitting, but unlike the A's, it hasn't worked. Also, their super-ultra-ace Santana is having troubles getting going, and not resembling a Cy Young type dude.
WRT the A's, are you therefore saying the A's end up in the Wild Card?
Re the Boras Client Swap:
Beltre: 9.5 VORP
Drew: 30.2 VORP
It's not even close, even with Drew on the DL. No way Beltre VORPs over the 20 mark, even if he gets blazing red hot the rest of the way. DePo inherited Nomo and his contract; both were unmoveable, especially after his craptacular start. Agreed on Lowe (who I thought was badly overpaid due to market forces) and Scott Erickson. Blame Valentin's injury for Edwards. But blame not DePo for the failings of his manager; Tracy clearly has it in for Choi.
If you want to add to the list, A. Perez shouldn't be on a National League team.
WRT the A's, are you therefore saying the A's end up in the Wild Card?
Re the Boras Client Swap:
Beltre: 9.5 VORP
Drew: 30.2 VORP
It's not even close, even with Drew on the DL. No way Beltre VORPs over the 20 mark, even if he gets blazing red hot the rest of the way. DePo inherited Nomo and his contract; both were unmoveable, especially after his craptacular start. Agreed on Lowe (who I thought was badly overpaid due to market forces) and Scott Erickson. Blame Valentin's injury for Edwards. But blame not DePo for the failings of his manager; Tracy clearly has it in for Choi.
If you want to add to the list, A. Perez shouldn't be on a National League team.
What I really don't understand is this need to hoard prospects at every position. A team with Arte Moreno's resources doesn't have to build exclusively from within, and even if the Angels were in that unfortunate position, having four top middle infield prospects and a glut of relievers makes little sense. Why let valuable pieces wallow in the minors knowing that there’s virtually no chance of them ever making an impact with the major league club? Especially when you can use them to improve your squad now and make a run at the World Series.
That’s what this comes down to – the Angels aren’t a bad team, but they’re not nearly as good as they should be. In case you didn’t notice, this club won the division last year. Stoneman has taken that division winner, and after adding $50m in free agents over the off-season all he has to show for it is a club that – at best – is treading water. Unacceptable.
As for Cabrera: That jury must be taking notes from the Jackson jury. This is a 30 year-old who’s never even had a league-average season offensively. This is who we long-term at $8m per, knowing full well that there are not one, but two prospects just a couple seasons down the pipe, and knowing that there are younger, cheaper, better options in the interim? How is that justifiable?
That’s what this comes down to – the Angels aren’t a bad team, but they’re not nearly as good as they should be. In case you didn’t notice, this club won the division last year. Stoneman has taken that division winner, and after adding $50m in free agents over the off-season all he has to show for it is a club that – at best – is treading water. Unacceptable.
As for Cabrera: That jury must be taking notes from the Jackson jury. This is a 30 year-old who’s never even had a league-average season offensively. This is who we long-term at $8m per, knowing full well that there are not one, but two prospects just a couple seasons down the pipe, and knowing that there are younger, cheaper, better options in the interim? How is that justifiable?
Richard: what do you call Cabrera's 2003 49.8 VORP season if not phenominal? His 2002 and 2004 seasons were also very good, if hardly A-Rodian. So it's not like he's never had value (he does now, and by the way is out-VORPing Izturis, much to my chagrin, 9.9 to 2.9), but neither is he ever going to see half that 2003 again, either.
Point taken on Cabrera's 2003. I was looking at his OPS+ (95), which I suppose isn't really fair to a shortstop. Still, if we're paying for career years, I suppose we should re-up Erstad in the $15m+ range.
As for VORP: When you relate it to playing time, you'll find that while Cabrera has been 140% as valuable as Izturis, he is so at 2000% of the cost. But Izturis wasn't the only "better option." Cabrera's been 79% as valuable as David Eckstein at 340% of the cost, and he's only had 53% the value of Placido Polanco at nearly twice the cost.
Indefensible.
As for VORP: When you relate it to playing time, you'll find that while Cabrera has been 140% as valuable as Izturis, he is so at 2000% of the cost. But Izturis wasn't the only "better option." Cabrera's been 79% as valuable as David Eckstein at 340% of the cost, and he's only had 53% the value of Placido Polanco at nearly twice the cost.
Indefensible.
Awright, Matt, step right up:
(1) I'll concede. Kind of. The Dodgers (at least in theory) have some interesting shortstop prospects coming up from Jacksonville/Las Vegas, at least one of which should be ready by spring training 2006. Or so goes the theorizing behind the signing of Jose Valentin, low-cost, low-expectations, and short-term stopgap.
2) Drew's injury issues have had nothing to do with his knee, surprisingly enough, which was his Achilles Heel (sorry to mix metaphors there) previously. He's currently down with a broken hand, a freak accident if ever there were one.
3) Valentin should have been perfectly adequate at third base, and he was previously. This year he sported a perfectly awful 85 Rate2 (in only 22 games, though).
As Steve noted, Werth has had his moment in the show, and it's over. Unloading Beltre and his super-sized contract was a good move; DePo simply refused to be strong-armed by Boras. Drew when healthy has been a good performer; Beltre when healthy has been uneven. Would Belly have been better had he stayed in Chavez Ravine? Maybe, but we'll never get to know.
BTW, Antonio Perez's Rate2? 95, which makes him an appreciable upgrade over Valentin.
(1) I'll concede. Kind of. The Dodgers (at least in theory) have some interesting shortstop prospects coming up from Jacksonville/Las Vegas, at least one of which should be ready by spring training 2006. Or so goes the theorizing behind the signing of Jose Valentin, low-cost, low-expectations, and short-term stopgap.
2) Drew's injury issues have had nothing to do with his knee, surprisingly enough, which was his Achilles Heel (sorry to mix metaphors there) previously. He's currently down with a broken hand, a freak accident if ever there were one.
3) Valentin should have been perfectly adequate at third base, and he was previously. This year he sported a perfectly awful 85 Rate2 (in only 22 games, though).
As Steve noted, Werth has had his moment in the show, and it's over. Unloading Beltre and his super-sized contract was a good move; DePo simply refused to be strong-armed by Boras. Drew when healthy has been a good performer; Beltre when healthy has been uneven. Would Belly have been better had he stayed in Chavez Ravine? Maybe, but we'll never get to know.
BTW, Antonio Perez's Rate2? 95, which makes him an appreciable upgrade over Valentin.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.