1958: The Case Against Dodger Stadium
VOTE NO on "B" - Unless you want to GIVE MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS... and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CITY OWNED LAND ... to a private commercial team for BARS, HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AMUSEMENT PARK, APARTMENT HOUSES, STORES, SHOPPING CENTERS, -- as well as baseball. ...
Amusement park?
Over at The Griddle, Bob Timmermann has reproduced the argument against Proposition B, a referendum to approve the trade of 300 Chavez Ravine acres to Dodger owner Walter O'Malley, along with financial considerations. Click the link to see the rest. And make plans to check out Timmermann's talk April 3 at the Vin Scully-defeating Los Angeles Central Library "about the political battle of bringing the Dodgers to L.A."
* * *
Update: Lasorda on pitch counts, courtesy of Diamond Leung of the Press-Enterprise:
"You can take a pitch count and you know what to do with it," Lasorda said, noting how he kept Ben Sheets pitching past his limit against the Cubans in the Olympics. "I'm not going to listen to anybody about innings and limits. But I want to do the things Joe wants me to do and carry it through."
Sheets pitched in the Olympics in 2000, at age 22. He made 102 major-league starts from 2002-2004, then 63 from 2005-2007.
But putting Sheets aside ... Tommy is still Tommy, isn't he?
Update 2: A scouting report on the Dodgers from FoxSports.com/Lindy's.
Update 3: Paul Oberjuerge, sports columnist for the San Bernadino Sun, discusses being laid off. (Via L.A. Observed)



1. For Delias Man in the last thread. I actually live in Chicago, and the closest I ever lived to LA was Davis, so I have no clue about any bars in Southern California that would show Argentine Liga games.
The best place to probably ask is on the message boards for BigSoccer.com. That is the place with the highest concentration of American fans of foreign clubs I've ever seen. If you can't get a good recommendation there, there may not be a good place to go.
Posted by: Penarol1916 | March 11, 2008 at 08:23 AM
2. I think Bob's talk is actualy on April 3.
But let's not tell Bob.
Posted by: Sam DC | March 11, 2008 at 08:27 AM
3. 1 - thanks
Posted by: delias man | March 11, 2008 at 08:29 AM
4. I wonder if that is the first thing the 15 year old boy thought of when he left the comment on youtube
Posted by: Kevin Lewis | March 11, 2008 at 08:35 AM
5. Reading youtube comments is where I go to lose faith in humanity.
Posted by: still bevens | March 11, 2008 at 08:40 AM
6. De Jon Watson doesn't mitigate the Pierre signing, but it helps.
Posted by: Sushirabbit | March 11, 2008 at 08:40 AM
7. 0 Re: YouTube.463,101 hits in two days? That's amazing.
Posted by: Jim Hitchcock | March 11, 2008 at 08:45 AM
8. the commenters have some good points about all giants being homo's and fruits, very valid, thought provoking, articulate comments.
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 08:48 AM
9. 1 3 Have you guys heard anything about this Setanta Sports? I was just at a bar in Laguna Beach (Mozambique) over the weekend, and they had Setanta Sports on the big screen. I believe it's a European channel because I remember seeing ads in England, but I haven't looked into it yet.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 08:53 AM
10. Joe, _please_take the Minotaur with you.
Just posted by Diamond in his blog.
Tommy Lasorda held court as Dodgers manager today, and he went after the pitch count. "You can take a pitch count and you know what to do with it," Lasorda said, noting how he kept Ben Sheets pitching past his limit against the Cubans in the Olympics. "I'm not going to listen to anybody about innings and limits. But I want to do the things Joe wants me to do and carry it through." Derek Lowe and Hong-Chih Kuo are first to pitch today.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | March 11, 2008 at 08:53 AM
11. The commenting universe for most high-traffic sites is insane. The comments on the Yahoo sports page (which linked the Kershaw video, accounting for that high view number) are every bit as stupid.
Reason #4,769 why I'm grateful for Dodger Thoughts.
Posted by: Disabled List | March 11, 2008 at 08:54 AM
12. 10-I saw that. Frightening doesn't even begin to describe it. I'm tempted to fly down to Vero and kidnap Kershaw myself.
Posted by: Dark Horse | March 11, 2008 at 08:56 AM
13. 10-I saw that. Frightening doesn't even begin to describe it. I'm tempted to fly down to Vero and kidnap Kershaw myself, just for safekeeping.
Posted by: Dark Horse | March 11, 2008 at 08:56 AM
14. someone on this blog made rob neyers chat today...
Casey, LA, CA: Is it safe to say now that Clayton Kershaw will have a better career than Sandy Koufax and Johan Santana combined?
Rob Neyer: (12:02 PM ET ) Funny. Somebody just sent me a YouTube of Kershaw striking out Sean Casey with a killer curveball (I'll post tomorrow in the blog, probably). He's impressive, obviously. But he needs to refine his control, and I'm afraid the odds are against him winning 50 games in the majors. But you already know that, don't you?
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 09:04 AM
15. {covers ears with hands} La la la la! Stop it! He doesn't exist... he doesn't exist... he doesn't exist -- Stop it! La la la la. {uncovers ears}
I just posted a request to Tony Jackson re: Tommy Lasorda, though I doubt he'll take me up on it.
Posted by: underdog | March 11, 2008 at 09:09 AM
16. 9 I guess it's only available on DirecTV or Dish Network which is highly disappointing. Gol TV and FSC aren't cutting it though, so I may have to jump ship. There is also a venue finder on the website, I suggest checking it out. Long Beach is pretty well represented, and the Auld Dubliner is right down the street from me!
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 09:12 AM
17. 16. I was about to tell you it was a satellite channel. It's been around since at least 2000 with a ton of matches.
Posted by: Penarol1916 | March 11, 2008 at 09:17 AM
18. 14 I'll take the over.
Posted by: kinbote | March 11, 2008 at 09:18 AM
19. 14 -- It is not possible to calculate the odds of Kershaw's winning 50 games in the majors. Too many unknown variables. Yes, Rob, contrary to the TINSTAAP nonsense, there is such a thing as a pitching prospect. It is one thing to say that pitchers are injury risks, which is true, but Kershaw's talent gives him better odds of success than almost anybody who has yet to pitch in the majors.
Posted by: CanuckDodger | March 11, 2008 at 09:21 AM
20. 19 - Doesn't anyone think that Neyer meant to write "500" instead of "50"? After all, the question was, "Is it safe to say now that Clayton Kershaw will have a better career than Sandy Koufax and Johan Santana combined?"
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 09:24 AM
21. 20 I was hoping that's what it was, and not that he was assuming he'd have an injury shortened career, which would be kinda mean.
Posted by: underdog | March 11, 2008 at 09:26 AM
22. 17 Nice, I was unaware of it's existence over here.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 09:31 AM
23. I'm certain he meant 50. He's just being realistic about a 20 year old pitcher who has yet to throw above AA ball.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 09:31 AM
24. Re: Youtube comments. I remember a time when the average internet citizen was literate. Oh digital divide, where have you gone?
Posted by: imperabo | March 11, 2008 at 09:35 AM
25. 23 - Do you think that there's a greater than 50-percent chance at this point that Kershaw will implode? It's one thing to say things can still happen, but I would guess that for people with his talent and mechanics, he's past the 50-percent mark.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 09:36 AM
26. [18-23} i think his answer was tounge in cheek much like my question.
i think he's referring to 50 wins in a season, which would be close to a total that santana and koufax would put up combined, but i could be wrong.
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 09:36 AM
27. 26 actually i think he maybe saying the odds of him winning 50 in his career are against him, i'd have to disagree with him. it is almost a certainty that billingsley will reach 50+ wins, kershaw will probably be in the rotation at a younger age than billingsley, and probably have better control than billingsley.
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 09:39 AM
28. 24
When was this? Ever since I first logged on back in '94, there has been a large amount of stupidity on the internet.
Posted by: LogikReader | March 11, 2008 at 09:42 AM
29. 19, 23-Pretty sure he meant '50' also. It's a pessimistic comment, but a nice counterbalance to the way the question was phrased. Yep, he's an awfully good pitcher. The odds are probably a little better than they are for most he'll win 50 games; but they're probably not as good as we like to think they are he'll be better than Santana.
I cringed to read that comment, though, I admit.
Posted by: Dark Horse | March 11, 2008 at 09:42 AM
30. 24 28
I do agree with you by and large that is has gotten worse of late. But I'd note that the majority of Youtube commenters could just be hitting puberty.
Posted by: LogikReader | March 11, 2008 at 09:44 AM
31. Casey, LA, CA: You think the odds are against Kershaw and 50 career wins? He'll be in the rotation younger than Billingsley and has better stuff and probably better control at his age, and Billingsley is almost a certainty for 50+ major league wins.
Rob Neyer: (12:43 PM ET ) Casey, I promise you that if you go back 20 years and make a list of every pitcher with Kershaw's credentials, you'll find that most of them didn't win 50. Pitching in the majors is really, really, really hard. Probably the hardest thing there is.
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 09:44 AM
32. I doubt it's a typo. The chances of any pitcher winning 500 games in a career is astronomically low. People have a hard time getting to 200. 300 is considered amazing.
The chances of a pitcher winning 50 games in a season are even lower. To win 50 games, you have to play in 50 games, which is like 1/3 of the season.
Either of those is a "duh, it's not gonna happen" thing. I think Neyer is referring to the TINSSAAPP argument. But at this stage, it seems more likely he'll have at least a decent career than a not-so-decent career. If he indeed cracks the majors this year, I'd expect Neyer to change those odds.
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 09:44 AM
33. I read Neyer's comment as cargill did in 26 -- that Neyer was using hyperbole regarding the mythical one winning 50 games a season.
Posted by: Terry A | March 11, 2008 at 09:44 AM
34. 23
Implode is certainly not the word I would use. He has the talent, now he needs the health. Mark Prior is stuck on 42 wins, what were the odds when he had 24 wins at age 22 that he would end up with 50?
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 09:45 AM
35. 31 - Apparently I misread.
Posted by: Terry A | March 11, 2008 at 09:45 AM
36. 31 Or you could just have Neyer clarify.
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 09:48 AM
37. Take all the top rated pitchers over the last 25 years and find out how many of them have won at least 50 games. 50 games sounds so easy, but is it?
How many of those top rated pitchers were 20 and younger when they were 1st rated, and how many of them reached 50 wins. I have no idea the answer but I expect someone somewhere has already done the research and Rob has access to it.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 09:50 AM
38. 32 - I wasn't suggesting Kershaw would win 500 games in a career or 50 games in a season. I just thought Neyer was having some fun.
34 - The odds were good. That's my point. That it hasn't happened for Prior doesn't mean the odds at that point weren't good.
I understand TNASDASAAAAAAP. I believe in it. But it doesn't mean that you don't ever arrive.
I may be wrong, but that was my reaction.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 09:54 AM
39. what is TINSSAAP and TNASDASAAAAAP?
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 09:56 AM
40. 34-Well, in the meantime, let's hope Prior remains stuck on 42 for the remainder of this season, at least.
Posted by: Dark Horse | March 11, 2008 at 09:59 AM
41. 38 Oh. I take everything literally so I never get that kind of humor. My bad.
39 There Is no Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect.
I think I had a typo when I typed it. It's not exactly the coolest acronym out there. It refers to pitching prospects being much less predictable than hitting prospects.
Even if the odds are against Kershaw winning 50 games, they're still higher for him than for the vast majority of pitching prospects out there. So why shouldn't we be optimistic?
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM
42. Wow, Joel Sheehan just called the Mariners a "better run" club than the Dodgers in his BP chat. That stings, though I don't see how it's true. Especially after that Bedard trade.
Posted by: Rob M | March 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM
43. 27 How can you say Kershaw will probably have better control than Bills at this moment in time? And what does Bills have to do with Kershaw getting to the bigs and being successful? Forecasting his career at this point seems a bit ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, resistance to his previously stated non-existence is futile.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 10:04 AM
44. Not to beat a dead horse but Edwin Jackson and Greg Miller will not win 50 games combined and they were both 20 and younger and the top rated pitchers in the organization at one time. Anibal Sanchez and Josh Johnson were going to anchor the Marline rotation for the next 5 years. Who? Is Liriano going to win 50 games after looking better then Santana for 1/2 a season? Will Adam Miller even start in the majors after being the best pitcher in single A as a teen ager?
Kershaw's stuff is better then anyone (except Liriano)listed but his stuff is not the question, strictly his health. He has barely scratched the surface of the innings he is going to be pitching. No one here, not even Canuck knows how is arm will hold up when he becomes a regular fixture in a major league rotation.
We all hope for the best but expectations should be tempered by reality. Dr Jobe and company do a bang up business and they don't go looking for clients, the clients come to them. To many for my taste.
I'm' not trying to rain on any parade. I'm as excited about Kershaw as anyone, but I don't think what Neyer said was wrong. Plenty do arrive, but just as many never get the chance.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM
45. Lasorda benches Kemp! Lasorda benches Kemp! :)
http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/my_weblog/2008/03/todays_lineup_1.html
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM
46. 44 - Okay, I accept what you're saying.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 10:07 AM
47. 43 I think the non-existence campaign is officially a complete failure, thanks to that curve ball and Vin's call.
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 10:07 AM
48. 43 i said at the age of 19 he probably has better comman than c bill, and i just wanted a clarification on what he told me on my first question.
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 10:08 AM
49. 42
Why should that surprise you. Joe Sheehan despises Ned Colletti and has taken shots at him in every column and every chat.
I don't know who wrote the Dodger portion of BP2008 but the shots to the body continue. Some are legitimate, some are horse manure. You'd think Rafy and Maddux never existed in their world and that all the kids traded are playing in all-star games instead of having a tough time making 25 man rosters.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 10:10 AM
50. Neyer is notoriously pessimistic about young, hyped pitching. It's not because he's a "hater" though, it's just a numbers game backed up over and over again by history. To win that amount you have to be healthy and relatively successful, two very difficult hurdles to clear for a 19 year old.
Posted by: blue22 | March 11, 2008 at 10:10 AM
51. 45
Wouldn't it be hard for Kemp to both play and get ready to fly to China?
Posted by: Bob Timmermann | March 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM
52. 51 - Oh, I guess. I was just having some fun :)
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
53. The Kershaw video is now No. 1.
http://www.youtube.com/members?t=t&p=1&s=mv&g=0
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM
54. 24 , 28 My first time internetin' was in 1994 also. Back then it was bulletin boards, mailing lists, and Usenet groups. The majority of users were college comp-sci guys and techies, and yeah, it was a fairly literate place. There were stupid people, sure, but at least they were stupid people who could write and construct a well-thought out observation.
And then AOL started up and everything went straight to hell.
Posted by: Disabled List | March 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM
55. 48 Well, there are other ways to go about that. You don't have to make your point by proclaiming that Kershaw will be in the bigs sooner than Bills with better control. You act as if Bills is Brett Tomko. This will be Bills first full season in the bigs, so lets stop making outlandish claims about a young pitcher his age. Many believe Bills has the makings of being the staff ace this year.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM
56. 54 AOL was my first ISP =/.
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 10:21 AM
57. I think we should just make up what's happening in today's game here, since it's not on radio or TV and the box score is usually extremely slow to update.
Posted by: underdog | March 11, 2008 at 10:23 AM
58. 49 I agree with Joe Sheehan. I read Wlad Balientien is getting a legit shot to unseat Ibanez. That couldn't be said about Andre Ethier.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 10:23 AM
59. 57 "Kershaw on the mound, ready to begin his 10th inning of work here in this 0-0 tie. He's thrown 167 pitches so far, but Lasorda is showing remarkable faith in the young phenom, letting Kershaw know that this is his game to win or lose..."
Posted by: Disabled List | March 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM
60. It seems like KABC is broadcasting far fewer of the spring games than the old station (KSFB?) used to.
Posted by: DXMachina | March 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM
61. 57 1st inning: "Juan Pierre is mysteriously out of the starting line-up. More updates as we receive them."
3rd inning: "And we've just received word that Juan Pierre has been traded. Back to the game, Andre Ethier at the plate looking extremely happy. Here's the pitch, and he belts it. High fly ball to deep right field... home run! And Andre's rounding the bases looking like he just won the lotto."
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
62. 58-We don't actually know that to be true, however. Whether Ethier has a "legitimate" shot to unseat Pierre or not will be decided in the months ahead, and not by Tony Jackson. At the same time, Colletti did not make the sort of idiot trade the M's did to acquire Bedard. It's hard to argue our franchise is "well run" at this point--hardly--but there are worse.
Posted by: Dark Horse | March 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
63. 59 If we're making stuff up, might as well be optimistic about it.
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 10:33 AM
64. 57 "After a scoreless 10th, in which Kershaw loaded the bases with walks and then K'd the side, the young pitcher walks off the mound dejectedly. Larry Bowa waits for him at the third base line and gives the teenager an earful. And now a message from Farmer John."
Posted by: kinbote | March 11, 2008 at 10:33 AM
65. 58
Funny, because Bill has been has been bad. Ned may have signed some rotten eggs and traded some kids but Bill has a much longer and lousier history. Ned has a long long way to go before he enters Bill Bavasi territory. He has made several of the worse trades in the 21st century starting with his very first one.
January 8, 2004: Carlos Guillen-Traded by the Seattle Mariners to the Detroit Tigers for Ramon Santiago and Juan Gonzalez (minors).
Or This
Traded Freddy Garcia and Ben Davis to the Chicago White Sox. Received Jeremy Reed, Miguel Olivo, and Mike Morse.
Or this
Signed Richie Sexson as a free agent.
Or This
Traded Randy Winn to the San Francisco Giants. Received Yorvit Torrealba and Jesse Foppert(Speaking of broken prospects).
Or This
Signed Scott Spezio
Or This
Traded Asdrubal Cabrera to the Cleveland Indians. Received Eduardo Perez.(Evidently Billy doesn't like infielders like Guillen and Cabrera who are actually good)
Or This
Traded Rafael Soriano to the Atlanta Braves. Received Horacio Ramirez.
Or This
Traded Emiliano Fruto and Chris Snelling to the Washington Nationals. Received Jose Vidro and cash.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM
66. Koufax may be unique, but IIRC he hit the bigs at age 19 and never spent a day in the minors.
This is a different time. Since Koufax struggled with control for a good while, these days he'd probably be in the minors working on it.
Wouldn't be surprising if Kershaw and maybe others have better control at 19 than Koufax.
Posted by: twerp | March 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM
67. 57 64 "Fans, it's been a heckuva day in Vero Breach. Lowe went the distance for the win despite that Repko-Pierre two car accident in left center that careened into the stands. I guess you can truly say now that Jeff Kent has Frank McCourt's ear, although he's about to hand it to the paramedics."
Posted by: Ken Noe | March 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM
68. 65 That Rafael Soriano for Horacio Ramirez trade was instantly--and correctly--judged as one-sided in Atlanta's favor. It's a prime example of trading to fill a need [left-handed starter] by giving up a better player.
Posted by: kinbote | March 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
69. Speaking of Koufax and Kershaw===
http://tinyurl.com/2r337d
Posted by: twerp | March 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
70. 55 what the hell are you talking about? i said billingsley is almost a certainty to get 50 wins and that kershaw is further along than bills was at the age of 19, i never once gave any negative inclination about billingsley.
Posted by: cargill06 | March 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
71. 65--Somehow I believe you are intentionally leaving out signing Adrian Beltre.
Posted by: JoeyP | March 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
72. 68 - I can see the point of a trade like that: middle reliever for starter (think Duaner Sanchez for Jae Seo), but it's usually not wise when it's lights-out reliever for waiver-fodder starter.
Posted by: blue22 | March 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
73. 16 17 - Setanta seems to be picking up the pieces that FSC, GolTV & ESPN leave behind (which seems to be the important ones, ie Champions League, big team match ups, etc.).
Only problem is it's a pay-for channel, not in a package. so $13 a month for the one channel kind of hurts the budget.
As for places to see a game in the LB neighborhood, I strongly recommend checking out the Brit Dominion in Garden Grove. Although I do love the Bangers & Champ at the Auld Dubliner...
Posted by: eekrock | March 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
74. 69 - Sandy Koufax: The Minotaur Whisperer.
Posted by: Terry A | March 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
75. 42 65 Who are they rating as the top GM's or best run club by GM?
Posted by: wireroom | March 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
76. 65 - My personal favorite: selecting Brandon Morrow over hometown hero Tim Lincecum, Clayton Kershaw, and Andrew Miller. Then compounding that decision by almost instantaneously making him a short reliever.
Posted by: blue22 | March 11, 2008 at 10:48 AM
77. 72 That's exactly the trade I thought of too. I remember the rather simplistic logic behind the trade was: starters are more valuable than relievers; therefore Seo is more valuable than Duaner. Oh, Jae Seo, whither have you wandered?
Posted by: kinbote | March 11, 2008 at 10:52 AM
78. Wow, I just typed "jae seo traded for duaner sanchez" into Google and the first hit was Dodger Thoughts! The internet is cool.
http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/309911.html
Posted by: kinbote | March 11, 2008 at 10:56 AM
79. 71
Your right I did not add it on purpose, the move has worked out. All the metrics support his current salary.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM
80. I'm enjoying your faux reports more than the "real" game, though the fact that LA is really up 3-1 and Ethier drove in one of those runs is nice, too.
I wonder if Lowe will indeed pitch a CG.
Posted by: underdog | March 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
81. 28 Ever since I first logged on back in '94, there has been a large amount of stupidity on the internet.
I sure hope you can explain that statement. :-)
Posted by: Dodgers49 | March 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM
82. 65 I realize he is a horrible GM, maybe the worst, but Ned is just as bad. Juan Pierre for 5 years is as bad as it gets. He got lucky with Saito, he overpaid for Furcal, he traded Betemit (whom he said could only play 3rd base) for a middle reliever who burns things after bad outings. He let Brett Tomko go 2-11, and still kept feeding us excuses. He sent Loney back to Vegas after he showed there was nothing left to prove. Signed Jason Schmidt to a pretty big contract after his old club showed absolutely zero interest. What a coincidence that two of the worst GM's in the game were competing against each other for his services.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM
83. 81
My early years on the internet were spent on AOL Chat Rooms and an occasional AOL Message board. I was also 12.
Posted by: LogikReader | March 11, 2008 at 11:10 AM
84. 83
I had fond memories of those years, even though its kind of embarrassing to think about it now :-)
Posted by: LogikReader | March 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM
85. 79
How is that determined? It does not seem like his production vs. salary value are out of whack for last year, but do the metrics take into account the whole salary and years?
As a for instance: Vlad Guerrero's value has exceeded his salary for the life of the contract. I would say that Jeff Kent is in the same boat. As far as someone like Shawn Green who more than earned his paycheck for his first couple of years but then was grossly overpaid in the final years of his deal, is there a metric that evaluates the whole contract as opposed to a single year?
Posted by: CajunDodger | March 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM
86. 80 Lowe has thrown 4 innings so far.
Posted by: kinbote | March 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM
87. A scouting report on the Dodgers from FoxSports.com/Lindy's:
http://tinyurl.com/2t7wnq
Compare the scouting reports and grades of Pierre and Ethier.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM
88. Hmm, as long as we're talking about Colletti...
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/42754
The latest on a possible Inge trade
...in Scott Proctor, a 31-year-old right-hander, they have an established setup reliever they could deal.
It's still lousy, but at least we're dealing in the right direction. It could have helped to just keep Betemit in the first place :-\
Posted by: LogikReader | March 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM
89. 82 I'm not in love with Ned, but you need to give him credit for the good moves, not just list what you believe are the bad ones.
Without Maddux and Anderson, for example, the Dodgers probably don't win in '06.
Posted by: twerp | March 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
90. 88 definitely supports 82 .
Wow, that is hilarious.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
91. Kuo gets two Ks in the fifth, for those keeping score.
Posted by: Jon Weisman | March 11, 2008 at 11:19 AM
92. 84 Yeah, I figured that. :-) I just couldn't resist having some fun with you over the fact that statement could be interpreted more than one way. :-)
Posted by: Dodgers49 | March 11, 2008 at 11:19 AM
93. 85
Andrew ran the numbers on Beltre and I think he used WARP3 from BP because alot of Beltre's worth comes from his defense which VORP does not take into account. OMG-I feel like a Trekkie
Joe P has a great article on statistics
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/
My favorite is the part about how they came up with batting average in an on base world.
Posted by: ToyCannon | March 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM
95. 88 I wouldn't take rumors there too seriously of course, but I agree that in general trading middle relief for a good hitter is the right direction. But I'd rather have Proctor than Inge. At least Proctor comes fairly close to earning his salary and is useful; I'm not sure what Inge gives us given his cost unless the Tigers wanted Juan Pierre, too. ;-)
Posted by: underdog | March 11, 2008 at 11:21 AM
94. Not to belablor a much over-belabored point, but there was talk a thread or so back that Ned should have re-signed Lofton instead of the Albatross. No doubt another year of Lofton would have been far better--which no one could know at that time.
But during Lofton's year as a Dodger, there was a lot of DT chatter about his misadventures chasing down balls, taking wrong routes, making bad throws (!!!!), getting older, and the like. Tho offensively he was fairly decent, IIRC most DT sentiment was that the team shouldn't re-sign him.
Be careful what you wish for dept., example 4,200,679.38. Meanwhile, Lofton still seemed pretty productive last year.
Posted by: twerp | March 11, 2008 at 11:21 AM
96. 82
In Colletti's defense on the Schmidt signing, Walt Jocketty was also hot on his trail and he is a pretty fair GM. As far as old teams not interested in previous players, that has happened with quite a few guys and quite a few teams.
I think Colletti has been pretty good at trades. He has not given away a single player other than maybe Dioner Navarro who has seen even a modicum of success in the majors.
Knocks against: The Pierre dabacle, not signing some of their picks to above slot money (though this seems to be an organizational sickness not confined to Ned), and being slow to play the youngsters.
For: He lets White do his thing without getting in the way, he has not traded away a single prospect of note, his Maddux trade and the Furcal signing are widely seen as good to great deals.
I don't think he is in the Epstein/Shapiro stratosphere, but he is good to average in my opinion. Aggravating sometimes, but tolerable. At least he isn't Malone, Dombrowski, Sabean, or Wade.
Posted by: CajunDodger | March 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM
97. 89 Very true, but he has hurt more than he has helped. I understand he made a few nice moves in 2006, but they didn't take us very far. And I think it's fair to say the NL West is a lot tougher than it was in 2006.
Posted by: MC Safety | March 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM
98. 88 That sounds like nothing new than whatever happened a couple weeks ago, except with more speculation now that Andy is out.
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM
99. Ned hasn't traded the farm. There has to be credit given for the moves he didn't make, right
Posted by: fanerman | March 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM
100. 89 Yeah, I agree. There's no way you can compare Bavasi's moves through his tenure vs Colletti and say they're evenly bad. If you hate Colletti, fine, but let's be fair here. NO ONE has made as many stupid moves as Bavasi. And as twerp says, at least Ned's made some good moves too - and more importantly to me, maybe has learned a few things, like how stupid some of his moves have been. ;-) Don't see much evidence that Bavasi has learned anything. So one is mediocre and occasionally stupid, the other is in a different ballpark of stupidity, imho.
Posted by: underdog | March 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM