Great pitchers have downs with their ups
November 2, 2009 | 10:59
am
Here's the 2009 scouting report (written by Greg Grant) on Phillies star pitcher Cliff Lee in the Maple Street Press 2009 Indians Annual:
In 2007, Cliff Lee had about as bad a season as a veteran pitcher can have. After starting the season on the disabled list, he pitched poorly once activated, beaned Sammy Sosa on "Sammy Sosa Night" in Texas, got into a fight with Victor Martinez, famously tipped his hat when the crowd booed him as he was taken out of a game, and then got sent down to the minors, all before the end of July. Coming into 2008, Lee battled with Aaron Laffey and Jeremy Sowers for the fifth spot in the rotation and won, primarily because he had no options left. He didn't receive his first start until the Indians' sixth game, which he won. And then he kept on winning. When Fausto Carmona got hurt, Lee kept on winning. When CC Sabathia was traded, Lee kept on winning. He won so much that he became the Indians' first 20-game winner since Gaylord Perry in 1974, winning the Cy Young Award after leading the league in wins, winning percentage, and ERA. What changed? Lee made giant strides in control (5.00 K/BB), kept the ball in the park (0.48 home runs per game), and got more ground balls (46.4%, by far the highest of his career). In other words, after years of not living up to his potential, Lee finally learned to pitch like an ace.
This gives me an excuse to mention the fact that, next spring, Maple Street will be launching a Dodgers annual, which I'll be editing.
Meanwhile, it's worth noting Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel's level-headed reaction to Cole Hamels' "can't wait to get it over with" comments:
“This is all part of the process,” Manuel said. “This is the first time that things have not gone his way, and he’s [struggling with it.] He’s never been through this before, and it’s something that he will get through and probably be even better.”



"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the frightened, thoughtless search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own: for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things can not be confined to the [Dodger Clubhouse]."
Posted by: kinbote | November 02, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Just what the Phillie fans needed now...
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-odd-world-series-optimistic-ad,0,2363098.story
Posted by: PismoBruce | November 02, 2009 at 11:18 AM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-odd-world-series-optimistic-ad,0,2363098.story
Posted by: PismoBruce | November 02, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Kudos to Charlie Manual for a classy response. I was taken aback by Cole Hamel's reaction to his loss, but I was less offended by that than his claim that this "feels" more like a World Series because it's the Yankees. I think Hamels just needs to really remember to think before he speaks.
Posted by: MFC521 | November 02, 2009 at 11:26 AM
I am disappointed, how come there are no stories on how the Yankees are playing soft by not protecting A-Rod?
Posted by: bhsportsguy | November 02, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I hear that scouts now grade out Lee at 80 in the "savior" category.
Brad Lidge's rehabilitation ended last night I guess.
Posted by: Phenomenal Smith | November 02, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Just a quick reference back to the end of the last thread; I wouldn't mind Bellisario and/or Troncoso being used as trade bait to fill some holes this winter. I personally have concerns about both (Tron's peripherals don't really look like those of 2.72 ERA, and Bellisario is both an injury risk and an out-of-the-blue success) and the Dodgers should have plenty of options for the pen to fill in around the current core of Broxton, Kuo, and Sherrill.
Posted by: blue22 | November 02, 2009 at 11:42 AM
I'd be leery of Sherill, and concerned about Kuo's health...I wouldnt have a problem with trading Troncoso if need be (for what? who knows) but I really like Belisario and wouldnt want him going anywhere.
Posted by: AENewman | November 02, 2009 at 11:45 AM
"...after years of not living up to his potential, Billingsley finally learned to pitch like an ace."
Quote from the future from "Maple Street Press Dodgers 2011 Annual" edited by Jon Weisman. You read it here first.
Posted by: Remember Gil Hodges | November 02, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Kuo definitely falls into the "huge injury risk" bucket along with Belisario, but at least Kuo has a track record of dominance. Belisario has never had success at any level that even comes remotely close to what he did for LA this year, and Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh!) didn't think twice about releasing him. Add that in to the fact that his elbow looks like a ticking timebomb, and I'd be shopping him.
Posted by: blue22 | November 02, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Of course, as regards this specific trade, the Braves vowed to never deal with us again after we stole their other 2nd baseman last year.
Posted by: Bob Hendley | November 02, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I'm always surprised when a middle relief pitcher becomes a hot trade commodity. A couple years back, Scott Linebrink seemed to come up all the time in trade speculation, as the centerpiece of blockbuster deals. He ended up going to the brewers right before he hit free agency. Was that just great marketing by the Padres?
Posted by: Marshall | November 02, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I was downtown for the symphony on Thursday. I spent a few minutes in Bob's place of emplyment to look at that exhibit of Karsh portraits. That famous picture of Churchill is really amazing when you see it blown up like that. On another note, the best happy hour deal I have seen in awhile is nearby at the Edison. Your first drink (whatever specialty they are making that night) is 35 cents.
Posted by: Jack Dawkins | November 02, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Remember all that last-minute trade deadline talk about the Dodgers and Padres making a deal involving Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell?.... I remember reading it on DT....as a matter of fact...
Anybody heard any rumors involving the Padres' willingness to part with either of those two in the off-season?
Posted by: Jonny (TAFKAJ) | November 02, 2009 at 12:16 PM
>> The playoffs certainly determine a champion, and some (most?) years the best team seems to win. But it is foolish to assume that the outcome of any series between two playoff teams would result in one team winning the series over and over again.
Yup. That's why the Las Vegas odds for a series winner, even when one team is considered significantly better than the other, are typically only around 60 percent or so. It happens from time to time in the regular season, when a cellar dweller beats a division leader (such as our losing series to Washington and San Diego). It doesn't mean that one team is suddenly better than the other in talent and ability; it simply means that, for that handful of games on those particular days, they played better. It happens.
As Joe notes, I would feel good about our chances against St. Louis or Filly in a "do-over", but there is no certainty that the result would be the same. The matchups are still the same. Philly still has impressive offensive power, a lousy defense, a great ace, and a mediocre rest of the rotation and bullpen. St. Louis still has a great rotation (including a pair of aces), a pretty good bullpen, the best hitter in the game, but a weak rest of the lineup (which lets you pitch around Pujols). We still have a well-balanced offense, a decent rotation with occasional glimmers of greatness, an awesome bullpen, and a very good defense. These were the three best teams in the NL this year, and they're pretty evenly matched. But you only get to play the playoffs once, and whatever happens, happens.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 12:19 PM
>> Anybody heard any rumors involving the Padres' willingness to part with either of those two in the off-season?
No. But honestly, I haven't heard any rumors with even the whiff of reliability lately. I think any transaction activity is likely to wait until after the World Series is over, with the exceptions of managers and contract extensions.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 12:23 PM
>> (such as our losing series to Washington and San Diego).
Sorry, I meant Pittsburgh and San Diego.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Speaking of unreliable rumors:
mlbtraderumors: RT @dylanohernandez No truth to the rumor that an AL team has asked the Dodgers about Manny Ramirez, GM Ned Colletti said.
Posted by: underdog | November 02, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Jonny (TAFKAJ): What does TAFKAJ mean? -- Pete (JUST CURIOUS)
Posted by: pete | November 02, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Btw, I would agree about holding onto Belisario, but would also agree with the notion that if you're being offered something very good in trade value in that includes middle relievers, you trade them if you like what you're getting back because they're the most overvalued and easily replaced position in my opinion. Dodgers have so many good young pitchers in the minors, and there are probably other Belisario-like gems out there, too.
Posted by: underdog | November 02, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Ned (per Hernandez) no truth to the Manny-to-the-AL Central rumor Diamond floated earlier:
http://twitter.com/dylanohernandez/status/5371038346
Posted by: Ken Noe | November 02, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Oh, and regarding a trade for Gonzalez and Bell... We could certainly use Gonzalez, but we really don't need Heath Bell.
Are the Padres still trying to dump salary? Their payroll was already down to $42 million (29th in MLB) in 2009. Gonzalez is cheap, being paid $9.5 million for four years through 2010, with a $5.5 million club option for 2011. It's not like they would be saving all that much salary by trading him.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Last year I wanted to see if I could get a rumor to be commented by a writer. With Twitter, it would be very easy to do that now.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | November 02, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Bhsportsguy - Because the Yankees are ahead in the series 3-1.
If they were behind you can bet there would be stories about that very thing...everyone wants to assign a reason for why a team loses.
Posted by: Jack | November 02, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I also think Manuel lost the series for the Phillies by not having Lee throw 3 games. Cliff Lee should have started Game 4, and if necessary Game 7.
If Girardi is going to use his aces on short rest, you'd think Manuel would match him.
Posted by: Jack | November 02, 2009 at 12:34 PM
The unsourced speculation that is the rumor mill has the Pads shopping Gonzalez since Kyle Blanks, their top offensive prospect, is a first baseman. Boston is viewed as a top destination for him.
"the Braves vowed to never deal with us again after we stole their other 2nd baseman last year."
I saw you mention this last week, and I don't get the reference.
"TAFKAJ"
TAFKA usually means "the artist formerly known as"...
Posted by: blue22 | November 02, 2009 at 12:37 PM
If I posted something (harmless) that didn't then appear, should I assume it was "moderated" or simply lost to the void?
There are many that feel that SD would be wise to trade Gonzalez and make room for Kyle Blanks, their top offensive prospect who is "defensively challenged" and therefore seemingly destined for 1B. If Boston offered a package centered around Clay Bucholz, I think you'd really have to think hard about dealing him, Face of the Franchise or not.
Posted by: blue22 | November 02, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Hi Pete....
TAFKAJ...you ask?
Early in the season when first got on DT to comment, I went on as "Jon"....which is my name. However, it was nicely requested of me that I come up with a different name so as to be different than our fearless leader....Jon Weisman.
So, I went with "Jonny (TAFKAJ)"...."The Artist Formerly Known As Jon".... :)
Posted by: Jonny (TAFKAJ) | November 02, 2009 at 12:44 PM
wow, that took a looong time to make it to the page.
Posted by: blue22 | November 02, 2009 at 12:44 PM
>> If I posted something (harmless) that didn't then appear, should I assume it was "moderated" or simply lost to the void?
Lately posts have been taking up to 15 minutes to appear on this page. I assume this is part of the Typepad problems Jon recently mentioned. If it doesn't appear within a few minutes, keep waiting and refreshing, and it will probably still appear shortly, as yours did.
I just had to do the same thing; a little while ago it took about 5 minutes until my Pittsburgh/Washington mixup post appeared and I was able to post a correction.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 12:49 PM
every body in my workplace now wants that Phillies Back to Back t-shirt, and one of us is actually going to Macy's to look for them after work.
Don't think I'll find any at Citizens Bank Park tonight though :(
Posted by: das411 | November 02, 2009 at 12:57 PM
blue22,
The Braves had planned to sign Furcal to play 2nd base, but he got cold feet, when faced with the fact that he wouldn't be the ss. This after apparently initialing an offer sheet that was faxed to the Braves, who later voiced their unhappiness with the Dodgers when he signed with us.
Posted by: Bob Hendley | November 02, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Bob, it seems the Braves had a problem with Furcal's agent, not with the Dodgers as an organization.
http://tinyurl.com/yfjss36
Posted by: MFC521 | November 02, 2009 at 01:05 PM
So are the Phillies Dewey and the Yankees Truman?
Posted by: underdog | November 02, 2009 at 01:07 PM
A lot of teams have said that they are so mad at another team that they will never deal with them again.
Then they need to make a deal to help them win.
Bygones!
Posted by: Phenomenal Smith | November 02, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Oops, you're right. Sorry.
Posted by: Bob Hendley | November 02, 2009 at 01:18 PM
In 1948, Dewey carried both New York and Pennsylvania. That was good enough for 82 electoral votes. Unfortunately for him, he only picked up 102 more.
In 2008, if you carry both New York and Pennsylvania you get 82 electoral votes.
And in 2012, it will likely be less than that.
Posted by: Phenomenal Smith | November 02, 2009 at 01:19 PM
>> So are the Phillies Dewey and the Yankees Truman?
No. Prior to the start of the series, opinion was decidedly mixed, with no clear favorite.
It's also worth mentioning that the Series is not over yet; while the Yankees hold a 3-1 edge, the Fillies could still win.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 01:20 PM
Anybody know what the Las Vegas odds were, before the Series began?
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 01:21 PM
I thought bringing up politics was a rules violation!
Posted by: WBB | November 02, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Just thought of this......
Wasn't the Braves' big issue, aside from losing Furcal, that they felt the Dodgers had overpaid for him to such an extent that they felt it set a needlessly high precedent for future dealings? (for all clubs with players like Furcal)
If I recall, Braves management was somewhat turned off by what they felt was irresponsible spending / dealing by the Dodgers.
I think it came just after the Dodgers came up short on their efforts to sign Brian Giles, who returned to San Diego....Ned was not going to be denied on Furcal.
Anyway, that's how I remember the things I read at the time.
Posted by: Jonny (TAFKAJ) | November 02, 2009 at 01:38 PM
Las Vegas "odds" aren't necessarily how they think the game(s) will come out. Vegas and any other gambling for profit entity posts whatever "odds" they need to encourage bettors (fans of the underdog) to bet as much money as the fans of the favorite. They take 10% of the money bet on both sides, no matter who wins, so their interest is strictly in increasing the gross bet pool. The only way they can lose is if a large amount of money is bet on the winning team and little or none on the losers. That is why they post odds to keep the pools equal.
Posted by: Scrounger | November 02, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Most odds I saw were around -175 on the Yankees, which is a ridiculously great value for Phillies bettors. (Unfortunately the Phils didn't come through.)
Posted by: Eric Enders | November 02, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Maybe I shouldn't have asked for "Las Vegas odds", but the estimates of the probability of winning, the ones that are often quoted here.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 02:15 PM
>> Wasn't the Braves' big issue, aside from losing Furcal, that they felt the Dodgers had overpaid for him to such an extent that they felt it set a needlessly high precedent for future dealings? (for all clubs with players like Furcal)
I thought the Dodgers offer was similar to the Braves offer. It was also $3 million per year lower than his previous contract with the Dodgers ($30 million for 3 years vs $39 million for 3 years).
Besides, any complaint about irresponsible overspending for players shouldn't be coming from the team that's paying Derek Lowe $60 million for four years ending when he's 39 years old. :)
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 02:20 PM
"...after years of not living up to his potential, Billingsley finally learned to pitch like an ace."
Posted by: Remember Gil Hodges | November 02, 2009 at 11:57 AM
..."We always knew he was special" said James Loney, who accompanied Billingsley in the trade that sent them both to Toronto in exchange for Roy Halladay last December 5th. Billingsley, even after his outstanding 18-8 season, was still unable to propel the Blue Jays to the playoffs, who still had a disappointing 80-82 season and finished 18 games behind the surprising Baltimore Orioles in the AL East, led by Rookie-of-the-year candidate Josh Bell.
Posted by: Deuces are Wild | November 02, 2009 at 02:25 PM
My recollection is that the Dodgers' offer wasn't notably richer than the Braves', just longer. The Dodgers gave Furcal that fourth year which vests with 600 PAs.
Posted by: Eric Enders | November 02, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Anyway, we were paying for an SS, and not a 2nd baseman.
Posted by: Bob Hendley | November 02, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Actually, to some degree, Billingsley, Loney and Martin have lost some trade value since they are now arbitration elgible. Combined, Bills and Loney will make somewhere in the neighborhood of $7M - $7.5M next year and they will still have two more years after that. While that is cheaper than what they owe Halladay, they probably want players that still can be paid minimum salary for a few years.
Posted by: bhsportsguy | November 02, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Melky Cabrera has a strained hamstring. He has been removed from the World Series roster for Ramiro Pena. Gardner will start tonight. Molina is in for Posada as usual leading to this lineup against Cliff Lee:
Jeter, SS
Damon, LF
Teixeira, 1B
Rodriguez, 3B
Swisher, RF
Cano, 2B
Gardner, CF
Molina, C
Burnett, P
That's an unimpressive lineup.
Posted by: Alex41592 | November 02, 2009 at 02:49 PM
>> That's an unimpressive lineup.
I wish we had a specific few of those "unimpressive" players on the Dodgers. :)
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 02:56 PM
Well to specific unimpressive bottom of the lineup.
But, yes that's true.
Posted by: Alex41592 | November 02, 2009 at 02:59 PM
The Infrequent Gardner
Posted by: kinbote | November 02, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Every single one of those players would improve the Dodgers, although they wouldn't all be regulars.
Posted by: Eric Enders | November 02, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Well, maybe Molina isn't better than Ausmus. But maybe he is.
Posted by: Eric Enders | November 02, 2009 at 03:06 PM
The Dodgers outfield and Yankees infield together would be incredible. But, that can only live in my PS3.
Posted by: Alex41592 | November 02, 2009 at 03:10 PM
This is off topic but, I had to come share with my fellow Dodger fans! The official Dodgers twitter account (DodgertownUSA) chose me as one of their halloween favorites! I have to live up my 15 minutes of "twit fame." Go check it out, http://twitter.com/DodgertownUSA, I'm the guying trying to look like Kirk Gibson.
Posted by: Jeff | November 02, 2009 at 03:19 PM
Jeff,
I saw that photo, and that was great. I did think, however (and no disrespect intended), you look a hell of a lot like Tim Crews, also on the 1988 team.
Posted by: Eric Stephen | November 02, 2009 at 03:38 PM
>> Billingsley, Loney and Martin have lost some trade value since they are now arbitration elgible
They've also lost some trade value due to their disappointing 2009 seasons.
Posted by: nsxtasy | November 02, 2009 at 03:41 PM
The thing that makes baseball endlessly satisfying is that it fulfills our need for both rationality AND chance. This is a game of close tolerances, narrow advantages, and subtle differences that require 6 months to sort themselves out....and to reduce the role of pure damn luck. And then....the post season comes, and luck takes its hand. Somebody wrote here earlier that sometimes (most of the time?) the best team wins the World Series. Well, if it's "most of the time" I probably agree, but it's a narrower majority than we all think.
I love the NBA and the NFL as well, but pure physical and athletic superiority means so much more in those sports, where the playoffs are almost always won by the best team (the team that would win 80+ times out of 100). MLB is more like life itself, where ability counts (but less), athleticism matters (but less), but the margins are narrower, and the breaks count for more.
The key then, I guess, is to just keep playing, keep surviving, and work yourself into that final 7 game match where anything can happen and every man can be a king.
Posted by: tleonp | November 02, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Hence, in that world, Eckstein can be the World Series MVP
Posted by: Kevin Lewis | November 02, 2009 at 04:52 PM
Great story, Jon. Let this be a lesson to those who keep complaining (I won't use the word "whine" out of respect to the rules) that the Dodgers didn't trade Billingsley for Cliff Lee. I don't care if Cliff pitches a perfect game tonight- the Phillies gave up MINOR LEAGURES for him, whereas Bills is already a major league All-Star, who had a peculiar- and yes, extremely frustrating- second half. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the same people who complain loudest about not trading him are probably the same ones who complain loudest about the Dodgers giving up too early on Pedro Martinez, Jayson Werth and Shane Victorino...
Posted by: sarcastro | November 02, 2009 at 04:57 PM
Unannounced New Post Up Top. (UNPUT).
Posted by: El Lay Dave | November 02, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Eric, no offense taken. Before I put the mustache on my uncle said I looked more like Mike Soscia, haha. I guess I am built more like a catcher.
Posted by: Jeff | November 02, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Regarding the whole argument the Dodgers need an ace. Last year, when the Phillies won it, they won based on a strong offense where the core had been together for a few years, strong bullpen with Lidge barely being hittable. But wasn't their pitching rotation something like Hamels, Myers, Blanton and Moyer? And Hamels going into the postseason last year was unproven. They had no legit ace going into the series and on paper, the pitching the Rays had was better with Kazmir and Shields leading the way.
I don't see how a rotation with Kershaw, Billingsley and Kuroda leading the way is any worse than the Phils rotation last year when they won. I'm not going to turn down Halladay or a pitcher on that level, but I think the key is keeping the core together and getting them to play at a high level going into October. I don't necessarily see it as a must.
Posted by: neoncactus | November 03, 2009 at 07:46 AM