Evening News
Dodger vice president of scouting and player development Roy Smith resigned today for jobs unknown, according to Ken Gurnick at MLB.com. Gurnick writes that "some of Smith's duties are expected to be assumed by Kim Ng, vice president and assistant general manager."
It's the second front office defection since the season ended, following farm director Terry Collins' acceptance of a mangerial job in Japan.
* * *
Andrew Grant at True Blue L.A. asks and attempts to answer 10 provocative questions for the Dodgers this offseason, here and here. Definitely worth a look - give him your thoughts on his thoughts.



1. first comment
Posted by: Gagne55 | October 12, 2006 at 08:32 PM
2. what about promoting Logan White?
Posted by: Bluebleeder87 | October 12, 2006 at 08:41 PM
3. It's incredibly baffling reading through something then seeing your name. Thanks, Jon.
Posted by: regfairfield | October 12, 2006 at 08:45 PM
4. 2 Logan White is awesome as the head of scouting. Don't move him.
Posted by: Gagne55 | October 12, 2006 at 08:45 PM
5. 1 - I don't want this to come out the wrong way, but aren't we past doing that?
Posted by: Jon Weisman | October 12, 2006 at 08:48 PM
6. 4
will Ned bring some one new in?
Posted by: Bluebleeder87 | October 12, 2006 at 08:52 PM
7. 1 really man, that's SO 2 months ago. ;o)
Posted by: Bluebleeder87 | October 12, 2006 at 08:53 PM
8. 6 - I wonder if this will upset the "balance of power" between "old school" and "new school" in our front office. That's probably grossly oversimplifying things, but if Ned brings someone new in, he probably won't bring someone like Roy Smith, or would he?
Posted by: fanerman | October 12, 2006 at 09:22 PM
9. As long as we still have the Old Guy who "discovered" Ethier, we should be fine...
Posted by: D4P | October 12, 2006 at 09:48 PM
10. I heard a rumor that guy wanted to sign Torii Hunter.
Posted by: Steve | October 12, 2006 at 10:24 PM
11. I wouldn't be surprised. It's pretty common to want to sign guys that you yourself discovered...
Posted by: D4P | October 12, 2006 at 10:29 PM
12. If we could get a young quality hitter such as Carl Crawford or Vernon Wells would people be willing to part with Kuo and/or Ethier?
Posted by: trainwreck | October 12, 2006 at 10:41 PM
13. (Polishes up resumé)
I wonder if the Dodgers would let me telecommute.
Posted by: Linkmeister | October 12, 2006 at 10:49 PM
14. I'd hang on to Kuo. He's young, cheap, and in 5 starts in 2006 did this:
BB SO K/9 P/GS WHIP ERA
7 35 10.74 91.8 1.19 3.07
with just 1 HR allowed in 29.1 innings
Posted by: D4P | October 12, 2006 at 10:49 PM
15. "Resigned to pursue other opportunities."
Where I come from, that would mean he was fired.
Someone had to take the fall for Danys Baez.
Posted by: dzzrtRatt | October 12, 2006 at 11:16 PM
16. 15 No, no...the new locution is "spend more time with his family."
Posted by: Linkmeister | October 12, 2006 at 11:49 PM
17. I would really like to know the story behind Smith's departure. Differences with Colletti's plans, perhaps? The problem is, we don't really know what Smith's ideas were, are. Though DePo brought him in, he didn't have any sort of reputation at the time for being a stathead. Truthfully, when he was hired, and a brand new job description was invented for him, I wondered what the point was. It sounded like he was going to supervise White and Collins, which was probably something that never needed to be done.
Posted by: CanuckDodger | October 13, 2006 at 01:32 AM
18. I would prefer trading Kuo instead of trading Billz, Elbert or Kershaw. Kuo is older, has a spotty track record and a horrifying injury history. If Kuo, Betemit and Penny would get it done I think I would trade for Arod. We would jetison a lot of injuries for one of the most consistantly great hitters in the game.
Posted by: Benaiah | October 13, 2006 at 06:59 AM
19. Who's the best pitcher to have a great career after "a horrifying injury history"?
CanuckDodger, is your point that maybe Smith does not need to be replaced? Which I think I agree with, but it's hard to tell when you're not in an organization. Then again it seems like everywhere is bloated with middle to top managers doing nothing.
I'm still trying to figure out whether or not Honeycutt is good or not. I'm not sure how you can tell, is Kuo an example of Honeycutt's influence? I can't think of one pitcher that I thought was bad and came here and turned it around, nor can I think of someone I regarded as good and they got worse. Sele was Sele, Danys Baez, Hendrickson, Gio, etc all were about as everyone here expected I think, I had hopes for Tomko and he did eat some innngs for awhile, but he performed in line with his history. But there were times when I thought pitcher's should have gone longer or been yanked sooner... Times when Penny just looked messed up on the mound and was left out there. Something about all that worries me.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | October 13, 2006 at 08:03 AM
20. I feel the same way as Canuck in that I don't know exactly what Smith's contributions realy were, not sure how many of them were successful, etc. I do know that'd I'd be a lot more upset if we lost Logan White, or Kim Ng for that matter. Losing Terry Collins doesn't help the franchise, but wasn't an insurmountable loss, nor a big surrpise.
Not sure what to make of Honeycutt, either. I'm never sure in general how much hitting and pitching coaches should be blamed or praised for a team's performance in that arena. Since our pitching results were mixed and erratic, was that his fault, or the erratic talents of the pitchers themselves?
And I really have to assume (pray/hope) that Bills isn't trade bait for anyone. Once he gets a little more consistent, he's going to be superb I think. we got a taste of that in the NLDS.
Posted by: underdog | October 13, 2006 at 08:14 AM
21. From the Times' story it sounds like Ned isn't going to replace Smith. He likes to speak to the scouts directly.
Posted by: Marty | October 13, 2006 at 08:46 AM
22. This morning's LA Times squib was actually enlightening. DePo hired Smith because Smith was an old-school guy who liked talking to scouts. DePo wasn't as comfortable in this role (the fact that he was depicted in a best-selling book as having no respect for scouts might have had a little something to do with this.) When Colletti came in, he wanted to develop his own relationships with scouts. At that point, I gather, Smith felt his role was redundant. I gather Colletti thought so too.
It's still strange that they would let him walk/force him out the door without letting him set up his next job first. Colletti says he might not even replace him. His focus is replacing Collins. So what was the rush?
But my sense is there is not much more to this than meets the eye. Smith had an exclusive pipeline to the top under DePo. He didn't have it anymore under Colletti. See ya.
Posted by: dzzrtRatt | October 13, 2006 at 08:48 AM
23. 13: humor is in short supply at the Stadium. You're in.
Posted by: PlayTwo | October 13, 2006 at 08:49 AM
24. 29 seconds late, and too verbose! Marty, you're a role model of concision.
Posted by: dzzrtRatt | October 13, 2006 at 08:49 AM
25. Most likely just that Smith didn't see eye to eye on some of Colletti's trades. Or he made a comment similar to what some of us here have said. What is it they say in divorce court, 'irreconcilable differences'?
Posted by: 50 years a Dodger Fan | October 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
26. 25 More to the point, expect a hire soon from the Giant or D'ray's front office.
Posted by: 50 years a Dodger Fan | October 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM
27. A mangerial job in Japan? What, no room at the inn?
Posted by: Robert Fiore | October 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM
28. 23 Er, thanks, but if my remark at 13 is a shining example of humor and as such qualifies me, their hiring standards need to be upgraded for the front office as well as on the field.
Posted by: Linkmeister | October 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM
29. I am not sure we have to assume that Roy Smith had some dispute about any moves that were made especially since he would have been one of the people who gave insight on our minor league players to Ned when he started last year.
I do think that a lot has to do with the change in philosophies and that there is no better time to look for a new gig when your last one resulted in a post season appearance. Probably a lot of his duties were duplicative to what Ned does and could be transitioned to Kim Ng.
As far as Terry Collins position, the article noted that they had already interviewed two guys involved with the Dodgers, one being current Jacksonville manager, John Shoemaker so I would think that they will consider guys from inside the Dodgers.
Overall, this is a slow period partly because MLB does not want announcements of new hires until after the World Series and outside of signing or extending players under your control, there is not much you can do until after the World Series.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | October 13, 2006 at 11:42 AM
30. 20 - I also have my reservations regarding Honeycutt as the pitching coach. As one of my good friends says, "What has Honeycutt done to make him a coach and teacher of pitching?" I'm sure there are pitchers with winning records out there that would help our pitchers out more than Honeycutt. Set aside, he probably is a good guy and all, but we need a coach that is a winner and knows how to communicate. I am not sure the pitchers really take stock of what he says, don't know for sure, just don't see the positive results after a visit to the mound.
Posted by: gibsonhobbs88 | October 13, 2006 at 11:48 AM
31. More props to Jon via Josh's current post on Inside the Dodgers. The link is right there on the right so I don't need to put it here.
Interesting that the Padres gave permission to Bochy to interview for that job, you wonder what will happen with their front office and managerial position.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | October 13, 2006 at 11:55 AM
32. I honestly dont consider losing Roy Smith that big of deal, or really any deal. He didnt have a define role in the organization and isnt really responsible for bringing in the talent to the organization. Good Luck to Roy though on his future endeavors.
Posted by: natepurcell | October 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM
33. 30 Well, I didn't mean to sound like he should not have been given the opportunity. Besides being a good pitcher, he learned how to adapt (maybe you could even include using a tack as an example), but I thought he impressive setting up Eckersly. But he's also been coaching for sometime, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong but had been in Las Vegas for a few years prior to coming to LA. I think he coached for the Mets at some point, but I can't remember. I'll see if I can find where he's coached.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | October 13, 2006 at 12:10 PM
34. Here's the Dodgers info on Honeycutt:
http://tinyurl.com/y7vkv6
I like him 'cause he's from TN, but you know I'm always Dodgers first. I was just trying to figure out what worries me about the future of Dodgers pitching and how you decided whether or not Honeycutt is doing a good job. Like someone else says, I'm not sure how you tell weather a pitching (or hitting) coach is helping or hurting.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | October 13, 2006 at 12:17 PM
35. 31 - I really sound like the ultimate buzzkill, don't I?
New post up top.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | October 13, 2006 at 12:20 PM
36. If Billz, Kuo, and Broxton worked with him, I guess that's a very good sign.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | October 13, 2006 at 12:22 PM