Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005 |
Answering The Dog Who Caught The Car
Steve at FJT posts his much-awaited reaction to Jim Tracy's firing. Money quote:
More on this from Jon, who points us to this Eric Enders amusement. Also, LA Observed has a few pence to put in.
DePodesta’s statement that he fully supports “anyone in a Dodger uniform” ignores the central fact that Jim Tracy needn’t wear a Dodger uniform for all of 2005 anyway.Every alcoholic needs his enabler. But what would such stuff be without a little deconstruction from moi?
So I turn to my fellow travellers. Those I respect, but must question.What would life be without spirited but friendly debate?
I have asked you before…who provided the hemp with which Jim Tracy constructed the rope by which he so ably hung himself? Who left the loaded gun on the table for the savant to pick up? Whose roster is this, injuries or not? Who built a woeful pitching staff out of $40 million mediocrity? Who left the Grabowskis, Repkos, Edwardses, Roses, and Ericksons around to abuse?Point taken, and a fair question. As you may recall, I moved to quash the Lowe signing, even back in the day when various elements of the Dodgers blogosphere proposed it, denouncing it once again upon analyzing the Dodgers' rotation in the preseason. The fact that the Red Sox, an organization that has some brains up top, decided to let Lowe walk without issuing any serious offers was a clear warning sign. The Lowe signing, in short, was a reaction to the lack of better alternatives, a problem I outlined at the time. At least this offseason, the cupboard's emptiness will be evident long before the game starts.
Moreover, it's important to recognize that this woeful pitching staff had to compete in the NL West. As lousy as the Dodgers rotation was, in point of fact they have the best rotation ERA in the West. And only San Francisco and San Diego beat them in the bullpen, a pretty amazing thing considering the injuries (Wunsch, Alvarez, Gagné) the Dodgers sustained this year. The pitching has been bad, yes, but not so bad that the team couldn't have won the division with better hitting.
The Angels likely owe their entire year to their 22 year old “fifth pitcher.”Not to mention Robb Quinlan, Maicer Izturis, Juan Rivera, and a whole raft of role players. It's still a badly flawed team -- to be a real contender, it needs a pair of thumpers a la Salmon and Glaus -- but Bill Stoneman needs to be congratulated on assembling a team with simply staggering depth. When you can call up a Joe Saunders to make an emergency start -- and remember, he had a brilliant game against the Blue Jays -- and get quality results, it gives you a fair amount of confidence. (Full disclosure: subsequent meltdowns also occurred, though, but he was sent back to AAA afterwards.)
When things go wrong (and when you go into the season with a goofy idea like playing Brian Jordan and Raul Mondesi at the corners, how could things not go wrong)But clearly this was Schuerholz saying, "look, the kids aren't ready just yet, so let's put these placeholders in until they are." After exhausting every other possibility, the kids came up and were lights out. This to me was one of the problems with some of the trades that DePo has made: he's in a position where he either has to make a contract offer to Bradley, make a trade with somebody else for a corner outfielder, or pray that one of the Suns is ready for the Show. That is, DePodesta opened a hole in the player development pipeline that won't be closeable until 2007 at the earliest if the team has to rely on the farm.
This is the principle criticism I've had of the Dodgers farm system: "things" -- whether it be trading away upper tier depth, the sudden discovery that Joe Thurston isn't a prospect, the collapses of James Loney and Edwin Jackson, and on and on -- keep happening to the Dodgers prospects. It's hard to imagine Dan Evans making the Bradley trade, but on the other hand, Franklin Gutierrez hasn't exactly been Reggie Jackson for the Indians, now has he?
It's far too early to see how 2006 will turn out, but my guess is that it'll be a .500 season or close to it. The Dodgers still have too many role players getting too much playing time, and there's no clear way to improve the team that doesn't involve gutting the farm.
More on this from Jon, who points us to this Eric Enders amusement. Also, LA Observed has a few pence to put in.
Comments:
Sorry, Icaros, I just realized I missed answering your question. Obviously, I would rather have had Matt Clement, as did DePo, or Brad Radke, but again neither of these were available. Unfortunately, there were no better options, and so it became a matter of having to sign somebody. Is Lowe better than the next guy in line at Vegas? Probably. Is he going to pitch at the level he's being paid for? No way.
Just thinking out loud here:
Independent of anyone's faith in the Dodger system, and aware of TINSSAAPP or however that goes ...
Given that the befuddled Lowe and Weaver represent a top tier of free agent pitching in 2004 and 2005, is an organization's best tactic to simply hope that its farm system can turn out a couple of quality starters.
Say that the next ace in baseball might be a top-rated prospect or a guy completely off the radar. But with free agent pitching so dubious, is your best move simply to aggregate as many prospects as possible (taking your best guess at who will be good), and simply hope for the best?
I think you and I both agree that the Lowe signing, however unpalatable, came because there were few, if any, better options. Would the Dodgers have been better served to bring in, I don't know, 20 AA or AAA pitchers from around baseball and try them out at minimum cost?
It has seemed to me that there are very few pitchers we would consider high quality - that includes non-free agents. So should a team slash its pitching budget and throw a higher percentage of its salary at hitters?
Independent of anyone's faith in the Dodger system, and aware of TINSSAAPP or however that goes ...
Given that the befuddled Lowe and Weaver represent a top tier of free agent pitching in 2004 and 2005, is an organization's best tactic to simply hope that its farm system can turn out a couple of quality starters.
Say that the next ace in baseball might be a top-rated prospect or a guy completely off the radar. But with free agent pitching so dubious, is your best move simply to aggregate as many prospects as possible (taking your best guess at who will be good), and simply hope for the best?
I think you and I both agree that the Lowe signing, however unpalatable, came because there were few, if any, better options. Would the Dodgers have been better served to bring in, I don't know, 20 AA or AAA pitchers from around baseball and try them out at minimum cost?
It has seemed to me that there are very few pitchers we would consider high quality - that includes non-free agents. So should a team slash its pitching budget and throw a higher percentage of its salary at hitters?
Jon: I think the Giants have effectively answered your question for you in the negative.
Adam: I'll take the second option (because there was nothing to do), but in a sense that's an even worse possibility because it says something about Depo's ability to pry loose players in trade.
Adam: I'll take the second option (because there was nothing to do), but in a sense that's an even worse possibility because it says something about Depo's ability to pry loose players in trade.
Another question for discussion: Who or what is responsible for the current deficiencies in the overall Dodger organization?
Is it McCourt for the chain of events initiated by impeding the Guerrero signing?
DePodesta for the quality Dodgers that he did dismiss (putting aside the many who weren't quality Dodgers)?
Evans?
Are we still detoxing in tangible ways from Malone? From Fox? Does it take this long - are we still recovering from their mistakes?
A combination?
Who is free of responsibility at this point?
Is it McCourt for the chain of events initiated by impeding the Guerrero signing?
DePodesta for the quality Dodgers that he did dismiss (putting aside the many who weren't quality Dodgers)?
Evans?
Are we still detoxing in tangible ways from Malone? From Fox? Does it take this long - are we still recovering from their mistakes?
A combination?
Who is free of responsibility at this point?
I think the Giants have effectively answered your question for you in the negative.
Well, they didn't get the 20 AAA pitchers. And their top-paid and best offensive player missed 150 games. Sabean, in a sense, did what DePodesta did - invested big in offensive players at risk of being on the disabled list.
Well, they didn't get the 20 AAA pitchers. And their top-paid and best offensive player missed 150 games. Sabean, in a sense, did what DePodesta did - invested big in offensive players at risk of being on the disabled list.
Further to Adam's question:
Why must the dodgers operate as a mid payroll team? Why can they not "overspend" if that is what it takes to win?
Next year they will most likely have a payroll between $70-$80M, or a 25-30% decrease since McCourt bought the team. And the team is not performing.
At what point do fans demand more resources be put into the team?
Why must the dodgers operate as a mid payroll team? Why can they not "overspend" if that is what it takes to win?
Next year they will most likely have a payroll between $70-$80M, or a 25-30% decrease since McCourt bought the team. And the team is not performing.
At what point do fans demand more resources be put into the team?
# posted by 
: 10/04/2005 02:50:00 PM
: 10/04/2005 02:50:00 PM
At any point you like, but the McCourts will do what they want to do. They have made it clear that the team should be operated at a profit.
Icaros --
I just want to know who you'd pick between Lowe and Weaver. They make roughly the same salary, aren't too far apart in age. If you had to take one of them, who would you prefer?
Lowe, I guess; his K/9 rate is a mite higher than Weaver's, and he gave up fewer dingers.
Jon --
Who or what is responsible for the current deficiencies in the overall Dodger organization?
I see it as the culmination of several factors: first, no readily identifiable quality free agents; second, not enough pitching close to the majors to make a difference.
Is it McCourt for the chain of events initiated by impeding the Guerrero signing?
Absolutely.
DePodesta for the quality Dodgers that he did dismiss (putting aside the many who weren't quality Dodgers)?
It was a side effect of those moves, yes, but they were generally understandable moves. In general, I agree with Adam's pronouncement that there were multiple converging problems.
Mike:
You should write for the LAT.
But then I'd have to deal with idiots like me writing in. But thanks for the ego-stroking.
Anon --
Why must the dodgers operate as a mid payroll team?
Because the McCourts are up to their eyeballs in debt.
Why can they not "overspend" if that is what it takes to win?
If you can identify a free agent target they missed because they refused to overpay, let me know.
I just want to know who you'd pick between Lowe and Weaver. They make roughly the same salary, aren't too far apart in age. If you had to take one of them, who would you prefer?
Lowe, I guess; his K/9 rate is a mite higher than Weaver's, and he gave up fewer dingers.
Jon --
Who or what is responsible for the current deficiencies in the overall Dodger organization?
I see it as the culmination of several factors: first, no readily identifiable quality free agents; second, not enough pitching close to the majors to make a difference.
Is it McCourt for the chain of events initiated by impeding the Guerrero signing?
Absolutely.
DePodesta for the quality Dodgers that he did dismiss (putting aside the many who weren't quality Dodgers)?
It was a side effect of those moves, yes, but they were generally understandable moves. In general, I agree with Adam's pronouncement that there were multiple converging problems.
Mike:
You should write for the LAT.
But then I'd have to deal with idiots like me writing in. But thanks for the ego-stroking.
Anon --
Why must the dodgers operate as a mid payroll team?
Because the McCourts are up to their eyeballs in debt.
Why can they not "overspend" if that is what it takes to win?
If you can identify a free agent target they missed because they refused to overpay, let me know.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.