Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 |
Pickoff Moves
Rob Neyer Reads Me — I'm Famous, Sort Of
Thanks for the linky, Rob.Trying Hard Not To Parse Disaster In The Dodger Tea Leaves
Lately, it's been hard to read the output of the Dodger noise machine and not get a little flustered thinking they don't really understand what they're doing. Given the McCourt's tendencies to follow whatever shining path appears to be favored at the moment by the local newspaper hacks, it's both scary and fascinating to watch the smoke signals vent from Chavez Ravine. As an example, MSTI parsed Ken Rosenthal's latest in which he implores the Dodgers to follow the Angels down rabbitholes named Torii Hunter (or one just like him!). The prospect of the team yielding to its baser temptations was highlighted in a recent Boston Globe piece on McCourt that exemplified the thought processes — or lack thereof — running the Dodgers:McCourt feels media reports of the Dodgers' clubhouse being a mess were greatly overblown. There might have been a youth-vs.-veterans feud after a few choice words by veterans Jeff Kent and Luis Gonzalez, but for McCourt, the worst part was, "we kept waiting for our talent to get us through the tough times and it never kicked in. When that happens, frustration sets in, and we just couldn't get ourselves out of that."What talent, exactly, was it that should have gotten the Dodgers through the tough times? Jason Schmidt and Randy Wolf were known to be injury risks. Los Angeles carried a lot of other decline risks in the aging Luis Gonzalez (.251/.316/.368 in the second half shouldn't have been surprising) and Nomar Garciaparra; and then there's the appallingly bad signing of Juan Pierre.
So it's with some relief that I read in today's Times Ned Colletti is going to rely on the kids. I should hope so:
"There's potential for change, but as we look at the young players that we played a lot this past year, we're less likely to fill in [positions with veterans] as much as we have in the past and more likely we'll give the younger players a greater opportunity," Colletti said. "I'm curious to see how our young players, who really had a chance this past year to play full time, I'm curious to see what another year does."ToyCannon at TrueBlueLA showed us why Matt Kemp has a very good chance of being a great player:
Several players who became flame outs ended up being traded but NO ONE was ever traded after posting a year like Matt Kemp posted at the age of 19-22. Also no one has been traded to my knowledge at the age of Miguel Cabrera after what he has accomplished.(By the way, Miguel Cabrera is going nowhere, just another free prediction service this offseason.)
Speaking Of Marginal Moves: Rich Lederer Pans Jon Garland
Rich Lederer has nothing nice to say about the Angels' acquisition of Jon Garland. Measured by K/100 pitches, Garland is pretty bad, but the fact that his groundball rate is declining precipitously makes the deal even worse. I'm of the opinion now as I was then that it's a pretty even trade because of Orlando Cabrera's age and relative chances for reproducing his 2007.Labels: angels, dodgers, transactions
Comments:
There are some pretty good pitchers (and by "pretty good," I mean guys that would fit somewhere into the starting rotation of at least half of the league) in the lower tier that Garland occupies.
There's really nothing not to like about the Garland deal from the Angels' perspective. It's a one-year deal. You can forget about strikeouts per pitch, per AB, per IP or whatever. The bottom line, of course, is still ERA, because at the end of the game, the team with fewer runs loses. And there's a darned good chance that Garland will give up few enough runs so that the Angels will have a chance to win most of the games he starts. And, if his presence allows the team to deal off another pitcher to improve the club in other ways (we'll see), I see no downside. As much as I like the guy, Orlando Cabrera is not going to contend for an MVP award in 2008. He'd be gone from the Angels by 11/01/08 anyway, with only a draft choice to remember him by. Even if Garland leaves, he'll be replaced by the same draft pick.
There's really nothing not to like about the Garland deal from the Angels' perspective. It's a one-year deal. You can forget about strikeouts per pitch, per AB, per IP or whatever. The bottom line, of course, is still ERA, because at the end of the game, the team with fewer runs loses. And there's a darned good chance that Garland will give up few enough runs so that the Angels will have a chance to win most of the games he starts. And, if his presence allows the team to deal off another pitcher to improve the club in other ways (we'll see), I see no downside. As much as I like the guy, Orlando Cabrera is not going to contend for an MVP award in 2008. He'd be gone from the Angels by 11/01/08 anyway, with only a draft choice to remember him by. Even if Garland leaves, he'll be replaced by the same draft pick.
Speaking of shared rabbitholes, how about this albatross contract swap proposal: Matthews Jr for Furcal. The Angels could sweeten with Aybar if they needed to.
One year rental for the Angels, Figgins goes to left field, and the Angels couldn't have a better OF...one set for years to come.
Dodgers get their CF, and GMJ might be persuaded to waive the no trade clause as he'd get to stay in LA with his family, and be more of a showcase player rather than a 4th OF.
Just a whim.
One year rental for the Angels, Figgins goes to left field, and the Angels couldn't have a better OF...one set for years to come.
Dodgers get their CF, and GMJ might be persuaded to waive the no trade clause as he'd get to stay in LA with his family, and be more of a showcase player rather than a 4th OF.
Just a whim.
Thing is, I have a hard time reading the Furcal deal as an albatross. Disappointing based on his 2007, but hardly reaching the levels of Juan Pierre.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.