Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Thursday, June 28, 2007 |
The DePodesta Mistake In The Mirror
Jacob Jackson has a fine piece about Paul DePodesta's Dodger tenure at The Hardball Times, one I generally agree with except for this:
To be fair, Colletti, like DePodesta, presided over a playoff berth in his first season with the Dodgers last year, and his team currently stands at 43-33, just a half-game back of the pace-setting Padres. But he's also enjoyed an increase in team payroll and an obviously higher tolerance from ownership for mistakes than DePodesta enjoyed. A Colletti apologist might point to Schmidt's clean off-season MRI and say that blaming him for Schmidt is unfair. But Schmidt's uncharacteristically low velocity and poor performance in the second half of '06 were obviously better indicators than a clean off-season MRI.That may be true, but he also had at hand trainer Stan Conte, freshly removed from the Giants, and who should have had a very good working knowledge of Schmidt's innards (to the extent that men in such capacities can have). To me, there were two mitigating circumstances regarding the Schmidt acquisition:
- The Dodgers needed rotation stability. Normally I'm in favor of playing the kids, but Chad Billingsley, despite a very respectable 3.80 ERA and a 7-4 record in 16 starts, only pitched seven innings three times the whole season. Games often went into the bullpen, thus taxing that resource more often. Schmidt pitched into the seventh and beyond 19 times last year. Now, you could argue (as Jackson does) that his second half implied he was having shoulder problems, but the alternative explanation is that, hey, it's the second half.
- The Dodgers only offered Schmidt three years. This is the really important point, and one I keep returning to. Even if Schmidt doesn't pitch one day for the Dodgers, his contract isn't going to be an albatross for the team the way the Darren Dreifort or Kevin Brown deals were, simply because it just isn't that long.
Labels: depodesta, dodgers, injuries
Comments:
Hmmm. An Obvious A's-Beane fan praising Beane's disciple. Shocking I tell you. Aside from pointedly ignoring DePo's failures (Choi, Grabowski, the botched Randy Johnson deal, leaving Gagne with no set-up man) neglecting to mention the hole LA has had at third since Beltre departed, the recent departure of J. D. Drew (which he amazingly alleges was part of DePo's brilliant master plan), and the fact that Dan Evans largely built the '04 club, the funniest part is when he argues that dePo really did understand players because he played at Harvard. Man, I'm convinced.
The bottom line is that DePo may well be a good GM someday, but with LA he was in over his head, alienated most of his Dodger colleagues, and was abused by his peers. Ned C. isn't Branch Rickey yet, but he still has the team winning games.
The bottom line is that DePo may well be a good GM someday, but with LA he was in over his head, alienated most of his Dodger colleagues, and was abused by his peers. Ned C. isn't Branch Rickey yet, but he still has the team winning games.
There is quite an irony in GAMBLING to achieve STABILITY.
As Bill Stoneman and Esteban Yan could tell you.
As Bill Stoneman and Esteban Yan could tell you.
Ken:
Choi got jerked around by the manager, Grabowski was a sixth outfielder who ended up on the team due to injuries, and the failure of the Johnson deal left the Dodgers with Penny.
The planned thirdbaseman was Valentin who tore his kneeup in April. He's since recovered and been effective. Injuries screwed over the Dodgers that year. Had Depo had the farm system replacements Flanders has available to him, he'd have done better.
Gange pitched 81 innings every single year he was healthy. What's a setup man got to do with anything?
Drew's out clause was a necessary part to get the deal done. Why don't people get that? Why is it that Colletti gets a pass for short-terming Furcal at above market whereas Depo catches flack for Drew's out clause? He knew that FA prices would probably go up, and thought that Drew would probably do well enough to be more than an $11 million player. He also knew that young, cheap, strong players would be coming up and so would have chance to make a splash in the FA market.
Finally the '04 team wouldn't have done a damn thing without Bradley. Do you remember who was going to play center field for the Dodgers before that trade? I sure as hell don't but he was probably replacement level, at best.
The only major thing Depo did wrong was not tell Tracy to shape up and fall in or ship out. If he'd done that and brought in someone who didn't want to play Jason Phillips at first, things might shaped up better for him.
Capital Dodger
Choi got jerked around by the manager, Grabowski was a sixth outfielder who ended up on the team due to injuries, and the failure of the Johnson deal left the Dodgers with Penny.
The planned thirdbaseman was Valentin who tore his kneeup in April. He's since recovered and been effective. Injuries screwed over the Dodgers that year. Had Depo had the farm system replacements Flanders has available to him, he'd have done better.
Gange pitched 81 innings every single year he was healthy. What's a setup man got to do with anything?
Drew's out clause was a necessary part to get the deal done. Why don't people get that? Why is it that Colletti gets a pass for short-terming Furcal at above market whereas Depo catches flack for Drew's out clause? He knew that FA prices would probably go up, and thought that Drew would probably do well enough to be more than an $11 million player. He also knew that young, cheap, strong players would be coming up and so would have chance to make a splash in the FA market.
Finally the '04 team wouldn't have done a damn thing without Bradley. Do you remember who was going to play center field for the Dodgers before that trade? I sure as hell don't but he was probably replacement level, at best.
The only major thing Depo did wrong was not tell Tracy to shape up and fall in or ship out. If he'd done that and brought in someone who didn't want to play Jason Phillips at first, things might shaped up better for him.
Capital Dodger
Cap - I think you would have been looking at Dave Roberts. That's quite a step down. And, to reiterate, I liked the exit clause because it mainly got rid of the high-risk years while providing the Dodgers with his better years at a reduced cost. The whole thing played out exactly as I (and presumably, DePodesta) had hoped it would.
As for Milton Bradley: he was good for 17 win shares in 2004, tied for second with, of all people, Alex Cora. That team absolutely goes nowhere with Bradley.
Choi: I used to be a Choi supporter, but he just never found his groove. Some guys don't, and now it really does look like Tracy was right about him. At some point, the guy has to be accountable for his own production, or lack thereof.
As for Milton Bradley: he was good for 17 win shares in 2004, tied for second with, of all people, Alex Cora. That team absolutely goes nowhere with Bradley.
Choi: I used to be a Choi supporter, but he just never found his groove. Some guys don't, and now it really does look like Tracy was right about him. At some point, the guy has to be accountable for his own production, or lack thereof.
Mason:
Given that Choi has ended up in Korea playing, I don't think his problems can be attributed to Tracy. The Gagne comment refers to Gagne's increasing use in the eigth as well as the ninth. Bradley represents everything that's wrong with DePo--a guy who looks great on paper stats-wise but was nothing but trouble in real life. Ask Billy Beane about that. And I still maintain that its revisionist history to suggest that DePo somehow foresaw the outcome of the Drew affair.
The bottom line in sum, after all, is revisionist history. Penny is pitching well again (remember last year's second half), Schmidt has his bad arm, Pierre has...well, his bad arm, fans are frustrated with Ned, so suddenly DePo is Branch Rickey.
The ultimate DePo effect was seen the other day when another site posted "interesting news" and everyone panicked. Why do we assume Ned would make a stupid trade? Because we're still recovering from the PTSD of Dukie to the Marlins.
And honestly, I wouldn't bring up Jason Philips ;-)
Obviously neither of us will convince the other guy, though, so have a good day and go Blue!
Ken
Given that Choi has ended up in Korea playing, I don't think his problems can be attributed to Tracy. The Gagne comment refers to Gagne's increasing use in the eigth as well as the ninth. Bradley represents everything that's wrong with DePo--a guy who looks great on paper stats-wise but was nothing but trouble in real life. Ask Billy Beane about that. And I still maintain that its revisionist history to suggest that DePo somehow foresaw the outcome of the Drew affair.
The bottom line in sum, after all, is revisionist history. Penny is pitching well again (remember last year's second half), Schmidt has his bad arm, Pierre has...well, his bad arm, fans are frustrated with Ned, so suddenly DePo is Branch Rickey.
The ultimate DePo effect was seen the other day when another site posted "interesting news" and everyone panicked. Why do we assume Ned would make a stupid trade? Because we're still recovering from the PTSD of Dukie to the Marlins.
And honestly, I wouldn't bring up Jason Philips ;-)
Obviously neither of us will convince the other guy, though, so have a good day and go Blue!
Ken
Rob:
If I'm reading you (and win shares) correctly, then the Dodgers would have won two to four fewer games w/o MB? Well, by my calculations, that would have dropped them behind both SF in the West and the Astros in the WC. I realize that, being an Angels fan and all, you're saying that a playoff berth and win isn't "going anwhere", but it was a step forward for the Dodgers. Without his contributions, it would have been just another second place finish behind the Giants.
Ken:
Why wouldn't I bring up Phillips? Because Depo traded Kaz Ishii for him? That was a garbage-in garbage-out situation. Tracy's the one that put the poor bastard at first. It's not like he had such a hot bat that the team couldn't afford to bench him.
Regarding Choi: everyone's entitled to their own opinion on him, but not to their own facts. Choi was an above average player with the bat in 2005 (110 OPS+). Probably not an above average firstbaseman, but an above average player. Then again, none of the other people run out to first base (save Saenz) were even average players. I don't blame Tracy for replacing Choi in 2004. That was a division race, he was horrid, and there was an adequate replacement (Green). But to run Phillips, Grabowski and Nakamura out there in 2005 when one, or two, of the men who finished up the year tied for second in HR's on the team languishes on the bench? Arm angles? Give me a break...
I assume Ned will do something dumb because of his fabulous string of TB trades, and because often GM's will do something stupid in the situation the Dodgers are in. The have no established power and a somewhat bountiful crop of youngsters. The best person to deal with is one that's who's in a state of panic. That's how we ended up with Juan Pierre for 5/55, Baez for much too long, and Kent and Garciaparra for a couple more decline phase years. No. My fear of Ned's trading stems from what I see as his impulsive, reactive nature. When he's calculating, as he was in the Maddux deal, he's at his best.
LoDuca has nothing to do with anything now. Stop pining for LoDuca. He was going to be a free agent, command a lot of money, probably leave, and yet, was nothing special. After the monster 2001, he was average to below average every year afterwards. His second-half dropoff was well know, well documented, and as Depo predicted, happened again in 2004 (109 OPS+ before the trade, 82 afterwards). His being sent away netted something that the playoffs that year showed that the Dodgers really need: An ace-type pitcher. Injuries derailed that plan, and the craptacularness of the catchers made things seem worse. It wasn't Delino for Pedro. Heck, it wasn't even the Piazza deal. Get over it.
I think you're somewhat off in your assertion that the "Depo was great" crowd is attempting to revise history. Some of us were saying this at the time and have stuck to our guns ever since. Depo had a plan, and it was clear to anyone who was paying attention and wanted to see it: Bide time, clear the the books, try to win with short-term deals (scrap-heap or otherwise), wait for the farm to come through, and then sign stars to fill what holes the farm leaves at the MLB level. His failure was not the plan, but rather commmunicating the plan to the writers, his bosses, and his subordinates. Of course, some of those groups wouldn't have given him the time of day, because they were on him before he'd even sat in his chair.
If I'm reading you (and win shares) correctly, then the Dodgers would have won two to four fewer games w/o MB? Well, by my calculations, that would have dropped them behind both SF in the West and the Astros in the WC. I realize that, being an Angels fan and all, you're saying that a playoff berth and win isn't "going anwhere", but it was a step forward for the Dodgers. Without his contributions, it would have been just another second place finish behind the Giants.
Ken:
Why wouldn't I bring up Phillips? Because Depo traded Kaz Ishii for him? That was a garbage-in garbage-out situation. Tracy's the one that put the poor bastard at first. It's not like he had such a hot bat that the team couldn't afford to bench him.
Regarding Choi: everyone's entitled to their own opinion on him, but not to their own facts. Choi was an above average player with the bat in 2005 (110 OPS+). Probably not an above average firstbaseman, but an above average player. Then again, none of the other people run out to first base (save Saenz) were even average players. I don't blame Tracy for replacing Choi in 2004. That was a division race, he was horrid, and there was an adequate replacement (Green). But to run Phillips, Grabowski and Nakamura out there in 2005 when one, or two, of the men who finished up the year tied for second in HR's on the team languishes on the bench? Arm angles? Give me a break...
I assume Ned will do something dumb because of his fabulous string of TB trades, and because often GM's will do something stupid in the situation the Dodgers are in. The have no established power and a somewhat bountiful crop of youngsters. The best person to deal with is one that's who's in a state of panic. That's how we ended up with Juan Pierre for 5/55, Baez for much too long, and Kent and Garciaparra for a couple more decline phase years. No. My fear of Ned's trading stems from what I see as his impulsive, reactive nature. When he's calculating, as he was in the Maddux deal, he's at his best.
LoDuca has nothing to do with anything now. Stop pining for LoDuca. He was going to be a free agent, command a lot of money, probably leave, and yet, was nothing special. After the monster 2001, he was average to below average every year afterwards. His second-half dropoff was well know, well documented, and as Depo predicted, happened again in 2004 (109 OPS+ before the trade, 82 afterwards). His being sent away netted something that the playoffs that year showed that the Dodgers really need: An ace-type pitcher. Injuries derailed that plan, and the craptacularness of the catchers made things seem worse. It wasn't Delino for Pedro. Heck, it wasn't even the Piazza deal. Get over it.
I think you're somewhat off in your assertion that the "Depo was great" crowd is attempting to revise history. Some of us were saying this at the time and have stuck to our guns ever since. Depo had a plan, and it was clear to anyone who was paying attention and wanted to see it: Bide time, clear the the books, try to win with short-term deals (scrap-heap or otherwise), wait for the farm to come through, and then sign stars to fill what holes the farm leaves at the MLB level. His failure was not the plan, but rather commmunicating the plan to the writers, his bosses, and his subordinates. Of course, some of those groups wouldn't have given him the time of day, because they were on him before he'd even sat in his chair.
Mason, I'm saying that minus Bradley, the Dodgers go nowhere in 2004. They absolutely would have fallen behind the Giants, as you say. The resulting second- or third-place finish would have been consistent with their Fox-era standings. I don't see how you can say that result would have been a big step forward. But actually winning the division, now that's a step forward.
As for Choi, I was in favor of him at the time, and think Tracy underutilized him. That may have had as much to do with his rapid decline as his collision in Chicago. (I also agree with you that he should have still been better than the junk Tracy put at first.)
DePo's got a lot on the credit side of the ledger; Colletti has some, too, but I distrust Colletti more. That said, Ned has yet to pull a Kevin Malone-style blunder.
As for Choi, I was in favor of him at the time, and think Tracy underutilized him. That may have had as much to do with his rapid decline as his collision in Chicago. (I also agree with you that he should have still been better than the junk Tracy put at first.)
DePo's got a lot on the credit side of the ledger; Colletti has some, too, but I distrust Colletti more. That said, Ned has yet to pull a Kevin Malone-style blunder.
Rob:
You and I agree on Bradley. He was a useful, major DePodesta addition, and without him it would have been same-old second-place. I was thrown off by your phrasing that "that team goes absolutely nowhere with Bradley."
Please don't remind me of the Malone years. I've always thought that Dodger fans everywhere should have sent Mr. Easterbrook of SD a nice gift basket.
You and I agree on Bradley. He was a useful, major DePodesta addition, and without him it would have been same-old second-place. I was thrown off by your phrasing that "that team goes absolutely nowhere with Bradley."
Please don't remind me of the Malone years. I've always thought that Dodger fans everywhere should have sent Mr. Easterbrook of SD a nice gift basket.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.