Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Thursday, September 22, 2005 |
No Plan
More evidence that Matt's asking the right questions: the Dodgers are converting Delwyn Young to the outfield?
Comments:
This is for Rob and/or Matt if he's checking in. What do you think are the most incoherent aspects of the Dodgers' operation? When you say there is no plan, what do you mean?
I see moves that haven't worked out this year, but I'm not sure I get the idea that there is no logical thought process behind them. The idea was to bridge the gap between 2005 and the 2006-07 arrival of the premium prospects with a mix of veterans and low-salaried but promising youth. There was a plan for every position. You can argue the merits of the plan - I didn't like Valentin any more than anyone else, for example - but it's not exactly a mystery to decipher.
By 2007, the Dodgers are in position to have:
1) Choi (or a Tracy-acceptable substitute) at first
2) Antonio Perez or Willy Aybar at second
3) LaRoche at third
4) Joel Guzman at short or left field
5) Drew in center or right
6) Navarro/Martin at catcher
7) Izturis or another minor leaguer where Guzman isn't
8) Young or an outside acquisition in the third outfield slot
and a rotation mixing together Lowe, Penny, Perez, Billingsley, Jackson, Tiffany, Broxton, etc., etc., etc.
And that's before you even look very hard at adding any other outside players. Not to mention the fact that there are other minor leaguers that could easily crack the lineup. I know that Rob is still waiting for results, but the sheer number of promising prospects puts the Dodgers in decent position to benefit from them.
Most of that nucleus can be together for years.
Is it too reliant on minor leaguers? Will it ultimately work? I can't say for sure.
But the plan is more than clear, I feel.
I see moves that haven't worked out this year, but I'm not sure I get the idea that there is no logical thought process behind them. The idea was to bridge the gap between 2005 and the 2006-07 arrival of the premium prospects with a mix of veterans and low-salaried but promising youth. There was a plan for every position. You can argue the merits of the plan - I didn't like Valentin any more than anyone else, for example - but it's not exactly a mystery to decipher.
By 2007, the Dodgers are in position to have:
1) Choi (or a Tracy-acceptable substitute) at first
2) Antonio Perez or Willy Aybar at second
3) LaRoche at third
4) Joel Guzman at short or left field
5) Drew in center or right
6) Navarro/Martin at catcher
7) Izturis or another minor leaguer where Guzman isn't
8) Young or an outside acquisition in the third outfield slot
and a rotation mixing together Lowe, Penny, Perez, Billingsley, Jackson, Tiffany, Broxton, etc., etc., etc.
And that's before you even look very hard at adding any other outside players. Not to mention the fact that there are other minor leaguers that could easily crack the lineup. I know that Rob is still waiting for results, but the sheer number of promising prospects puts the Dodgers in decent position to benefit from them.
Most of that nucleus can be together for years.
Is it too reliant on minor leaguers? Will it ultimately work? I can't say for sure.
But the plan is more than clear, I feel.
After reading these comments, I think we're mainly on a semantic disagreement here about what the word "plan" means.
Matt says that a course of action that is abandoned after two months does not rise to the level of a plan. I found this statement objectively wrong. In my mind, planning is what you do in advance, and implementation comes after. In Matt's mind, implementation is part of the plan.
But then I went so far as to look up "plan" in the dictionary and frankly, both definitions are valid.
Has the implementation of the plan been incoherent or at least messy? Yes. I think we would all agree on that.
But I guess I don't find Matt's definition of "plan" very useful because it doesn't distinguish between the planner and the planee.
For example, if I planned to have Adrian Beltre as my third baseman for 2005-2010, and Beltre then swings at every pitch, good or bad, and does poorly, is it useful to characterize this as me not having a plan? I don't think so. I think it's more useful to say that I had a plan that did not end up being a good one, for whatever reason.
I think to argue that DePodesta doesn't have a plan is ulimately a pointless argument. I think the implication of it is that he is doing things at random, and I think that is demonstrably not the case.
However, if you want to say that the Dodgers, as an organization, don't have a coherent plan, I'm not going to argue that point with you until I'm convinced that McCourt, DePodesta and Tracy (and for that matter, the coaches and players) are all on the same page.
But the origins of this conversation pointed the no-plan finger at DePodesta, or DePodesta and McCourt perhaps, as individual(s). And that just seems to miss the point. The point is that the Dodgers are not all on the same page - not that there isn't a page for them to be on.
Matt says that a course of action that is abandoned after two months does not rise to the level of a plan. I found this statement objectively wrong. In my mind, planning is what you do in advance, and implementation comes after. In Matt's mind, implementation is part of the plan.
But then I went so far as to look up "plan" in the dictionary and frankly, both definitions are valid.
Has the implementation of the plan been incoherent or at least messy? Yes. I think we would all agree on that.
But I guess I don't find Matt's definition of "plan" very useful because it doesn't distinguish between the planner and the planee.
For example, if I planned to have Adrian Beltre as my third baseman for 2005-2010, and Beltre then swings at every pitch, good or bad, and does poorly, is it useful to characterize this as me not having a plan? I don't think so. I think it's more useful to say that I had a plan that did not end up being a good one, for whatever reason.
I think to argue that DePodesta doesn't have a plan is ulimately a pointless argument. I think the implication of it is that he is doing things at random, and I think that is demonstrably not the case.
However, if you want to say that the Dodgers, as an organization, don't have a coherent plan, I'm not going to argue that point with you until I'm convinced that McCourt, DePodesta and Tracy (and for that matter, the coaches and players) are all on the same page.
But the origins of this conversation pointed the no-plan finger at DePodesta, or DePodesta and McCourt perhaps, as individual(s). And that just seems to miss the point. The point is that the Dodgers are not all on the same page - not that there isn't a page for them to be on.
Allow me to pipe up briefly here.
My concern moving Young was that he won't be able to handle the outfield defensively. Second basemen generally are second basemen in part because they have weak arms. Offensively, the position also tends toward slap-hitters. With 16 homers in the pitcher-friendly Southern League, that wouldn't seem to be a problem. I haven't read the BA or BP scouting reports on Young, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his arm is likely to be a problem. Otherwise, why wouldn't they put him in left in the first place and be done with it?
My concern moving Young was that he won't be able to handle the outfield defensively. Second basemen generally are second basemen in part because they have weak arms. Offensively, the position also tends toward slap-hitters. With 16 homers in the pitcher-friendly Southern League, that wouldn't seem to be a problem. I haven't read the BA or BP scouting reports on Young, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his arm is likely to be a problem. Otherwise, why wouldn't they put him in left in the first place and be done with it?
Matt - the bulk of your latest comment doesn't contradict my latest at all. We might just disagree on degrees of the strengths/flaws in DePo's plan.
Rob, outfielders are normally easier to find than middle infielders, so if the guy can play second base, that's where you want him. It's as much or more of a place for quick, agile reactions as it is for weak arms. But with the Dodgers top-heavy on the infield these days, it makes sense to train an adept fielder for the outfield.
You could be right about his arm, but I wouldn't leap to that conclusion.
You could be right about his arm, but I wouldn't leap to that conclusion.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.