And Brandon Inge starts house hunting in Woodland Hills...

...or maybe Heyman knew this all along somehow? At least this means we get some NOMAH!, whatever that's worth these days.

BEAN! BEAN! BEAN!!!!!111!!!

If any aspiring young investigative reporters are reading this, now's your opportunity -- see if you can track down the guy Ned Colletti hired to hit Andy LaRoche's thumb with a crowbar.

Does anyone here know the long term implications of this type of injury, if any exist?

I didn't know that there are three Ulnar Collateral Ligaments in each arm. The operation on this one is the not-so-famous Thumby John surgery. But when you're diagnosed with Skier's Thumb, they perform Tomba John surgery.

I'm dying to see the Nomah v. Webb battle resume.

Struggling teams all over the country are excited by this injury.
From the Braves, may I propose Prado for Elbert?
Or if you really want him cheap, maybe Brazoban?

It probably makes it easier for Torre to follow his natural inclination:

Garciaparra would seem the obvious choice, and Torre has said the 34-year-old two-time AL batting champion has the inside track because of his veteran status.

It doesn't really matter. Nomar was going to play the first 2 months anyways.

Kershaw for Crede?

Actually, there are rumors that Kershaw is going to crack the rotation to open the season - so he won't be traded.

And yes, I realize that it was just a Levski joke.

The problem is, if the Dodgers already don't trust their young players who played like all-stars last season, they're not going to trust one coming off of an injury. LaRoche isn't coming right off the DL and into the lineup; they'll leave him in the minors for at least a month after that, meaning that Garciaparra's inevitable injury (he'll play if "healthy," no matter how much he sucks) won't be enough to get LaRoche into the lineup. Instead it will make them trade Ethier for Crede.

What's so bad about that trade? As long as the Dodger's insist on keeping Ned on-board, I refuse to pull for them to be anything but sucky. At least Ethier would get to play in that scenario... Then, perhaps, with 3B filled, Neddy could send LaRoche upstate to Oakland for a savory veteran like Blanton. Hell, Neddy'd probably throw in Hu, and a few Single A arms too!

What's so bad about that trade? As long as the Dodger's insist on keeping Ned on-board, I refuse to pull for them to be anything but sucky.

See, my problem with that is that it appears that Colletti is teachable, viz., he hired, at obscene cost, a new center fielder after the old one turned into an expensive pumpkin, albeit a pumpkin that many of us had predicted long before donning a Dodger uniform. It's one thing to be a total idiot, and quite another to fail to learn the proper lesson from your own stupid acts.

Some of the Dodger Thoughts commenters were actually saying that LaRoche's injury is probably best for both him and the team in that

a) LaRoche wouldn't have gotten any playing time in the face of Proven Vetruhn Nomar Garciaparra being on the team automatically, and
b) he might have become Embittered.

I would add my own

c) he might even have been traded to get another Proven Vetruhn, such as Brandon Inge.

All these possibilities are pretty awful all things considered, but that's how Ned likes to run his ship. Not as stupid as Jim Bowden or Steve Phillips, but hardly a Billy Beane (and maybe not even a Bill Stoneman).

See, my problem with that is that it appears that Colletti is teachable, viz., he hired, at obscene cost, a new center fielder after the old one turned into an expensive pumpkin, albeit a pumpkin that many of us had predicted long before donning a Dodger uniform. It's one thing to be a total idiot, and quite another to fail to learn the proper lesson from your own stupid acts.

I wouldn't call it learning when it just meant shifting Pierre to LF, where he's even less useful relative to league average.

I wouldn't call it learning when it just meant shifting Pierre to LF, where he's even less useful relative to league average.

Well, you have me there.

I can see your point to some extent. But, really, in many respects, it seems Ned didn't learn much, in that he essentially committed the same mistake again. Sure Andruw's better than Pierre ever was. But at what cost? Andruw's not young any more. Pierre will likely age more gracefully, continuing to be what he always has been. Andruw, though? Hmmm. Not so much. I know it's a short deal, but it's a lot of money tied up in two OFers who ain't all that great nowadays. Why not just play the young guys? Bring in Lofton if CF proves too much for them to handle. It's just baffling.

Not as stupid as Jim Bowden

Look, I know it's fun to dogpile on Bowden, and to make fun of him scooting around on his Nationals segway. But, he sure has made an awful lot of interesting moves over the past few years. And he's fleeced some folks pretty badly too. Sure, Kearns & Lopez aren't all-stars, but they're far better than Majik and Bray. He got Lastings from NY for an aging catcher and a platoon outfielder. He's got "the player most likely to become Albert if he can stop acting like Joey Belle," for a song and a dance, plus Willy Mo being Willy Mo. This is a pretty exciting team in the making. Signing Dmitry was dumb, but Belliard wasn't so much, and the rest seems to outweigh that move.

Plus he hired Acta. And the more I read about him, and watch him, the more I like him.

I know Bowden was a jackass for a while there, but he seems to be pretty solid nowadays. And he'll let the young kids play, rather than insisting on importing high priced vets to block them.

Ned, not so much...

I can see the logic in thinking that LaRoche might be better this way, I guess. But, it's awfully hard for me to see a young player hurt his hand and say, "Good thing that happened!" The only way you care if he gets traded for a proven Vetruhn is if you're a Dodger's fan. I'm not afflicted with that particular malady. I'd just like to see a good, young player get to, you know, play. So, I welcome a LaRoche trade with open arms...

Pierre will likely age more gracefully, continuing to be what he always has been. Andruw, though? Hmmm. Not so much.

I don't get this. Virtually all of Pierre's game is about his legs, whether it's beating out infield singles to inflate his empty batting average or reaching balls in the outfield that he has no hope of returning to the infield without the help of the (nonexistent in hardball) rover. Jones can hit for power, which is an old player skill, something that Pierre could never do. (Of course, depending on your point of view about his 2007, neither can Jones...) Players with Pierre's skill set typically fall off the face of the earth early and hard.

Look, I know it's fun to dogpile on Bowden, and to make fun of him scooting around on his Nationals segway. But, he sure has made an awful lot of interesting moves over the past few years.

Bowden seems to be repeating his years with the Reds. He's gotten some good talent in the OF, but the pitching staff is a bunch of guys with huge injury question marks and reclamation projects. I don't think the Nats are at all close to being good. They have no pitching in the majors or high minors, and most of their good players are position players who aren't exactly young. The division is also a pretty tough one. The Phils and Mets should be good for the next couple of years. The Braves and Marlins both probably have better pieces to put a team together. That isn't entirely Bowden's fault, but I do think he's been too hesitant when trading guys like Soriano for prospects.

Players with Pierre's skill set typically fall off the face of the earth early and hard.

Really? Then explain the careers of Otis Nixon and Stan Javier - never good enough to keep a starting job safe, but as good in their late 30's as they ever were. Yes, some "speed" players aged badly - Vince Coleman and Willie Wilson come to mind - but others just kept going and going. Lou Brock lost power as he aged, but kept his speed and improved his batting average. Brett Butler may have been a slightly different model of player, but he was CF with no power and a heavy dependence on bunts and infield hits, and he aged well.

in that he essentially committed the same mistake again. Sure Andruw's better than Pierre ever was. But at what cost? Andruw's not young any more. Pierre will likely age more gracefully, continuing to be what he always has been.

Andruw might be a mistake, but it is not the same mistake. Pierre was a lousy player, not much better than replacement, when the contract was signed.

As for Pierre ageing gracefully, his OPS+ has been declining for 3 straight years, from a career high of 107 in 2004, to 75 in 2007. Even if you ignore that, if he continues to play at the level he did in 2007, it is debatable whether he is better than replacement level. At that point, who cares if he is ageing gracefully?

Well, yes, overall quality is the issue. Coleman's problem was that he just never was a very good hitter - he was always stretched to the ragged edge just trying to survive against major league pitching. And Javier was a better player than Pierre, even though he never really had a regular job. Brock and Butler aged well, but were better players to start with.

In Pierre's case I'm not sure I'd emphasize the idea of continuing decline. He wasn't very good in Colorado before he went to Florida. When I heard he'd been traded to the Marlins, I though he'd disappear from sight right then, what with moving to the pitchers park. He didn't disappear - he was suddenly better. But step back from it, and 2003-2004, especially 2004, looks like the aberration. Like Erstad's 2000, it's the year that made his fortune.

I was a bit unclear (guess I thought I'd rambled enough....). But, yeah, Pierre isn't as good a player as a Butler or Brock. No doubt. But, he just doesn't strike me as 'the speed guy,' either. I think it's unwise to use generalizations like that. All fat players do this, or all speed guys do that. Seriously, we all know from reading the Plaschkes of the world that Pierre is a training junkie. Typically this fact is followed with an 'imagine how bad he'd be if he didn't get to the ballpark at 7 a.m. everyday!' type of one-line rejoinder. And there's, again, no doubt that's true. But Vince Coleman wasn't a training fanatic like Pierre. It's possible that Pierre could stay at this (somewhat putrid) level, and still play for 3 or 4 years more than Coleman could manage.

Coleman is an interesting player, though. First 3 seasons over 100 steals, first 6 over 60. But, rather than longevity, Coleman was more noteworthy for biting the tarp and chucking M-80s at fans. Coleman is the very definition of the "speed guy who doesn't age well." He fails miserably at longevity compared to the Brocks of the world. Pierre seems to have a better shot at hanging on, given the amount of effort and repetition that goes into his regime, as well as his ability to play every day.

I want to emphasize that I think Juan Pierre is crappy, and signing him was a mistake.

But, I just don't think Andruw is any great shakes at this point in his career either. He doesn't work like Pierre does. I could see him falling off a bit, and living off of rep for while. But, that doesn't mean he's" the player" that Ned signed, any more than Pierre is "the player" Ned signed. They're both living off of rep a bit. Pierre can maintain his speed, and be an expensive 4th or 5th OF for all of his contract. It sucks, but at least he can be your Otis Nixon. And that money was a sunk cost. Learn form it. Signing Jones adds insult to injury (if his expanding frame forces him to a corner, or causes him to fall of a cliff), as it is money that Ned didn't need to spend.

But, signing Pierre, to get back to the original reason for my comment, and then signing Jones, doesn't seem to me like an example of Ned learning from his mistakes. He's still made the same mistake. Namely, he has discounted a very low-cost alternative to a two-year deal w/ veteran decline bait. He could've run a player like Ethier out there in left and kept Pierre in center, or waited, knowing it's a deep market for CFers, as Cf was the position with the most depth this offseason, and signed a less expensive option. Sure, I could well be wrong, and Andruw Jones could rip 40 homers, and play breathtaking defense. Or, he could 'live up to his contract' and manage around 25 homers, hit .250, and play solid defense. Great. But, Eithier would've exceeded his own contract by a bit, and probably equaled Jones' offensive production. The defense may well be lesser with either Ethier or Pierre in center, but it'd be passable. And the Dodgers would have $9 million in 2008 and $15 million in 2009, as well as a $12.2 million signing bonus (This is at least according to MLB.com; admittedly I am uncertain if this figure is precise, and it's late, so I'm not digging further.) to spend on something else.

But really my whole point can be summed up quite succinctly: Buying Jones doesn't negate Pierre, and certainly doesn't show that Colletti can be taught, or has learned from his mistake. He still went to the free-agent market and spent money without real need to do so, and in the process blocked younger players with some good upside (after all, signing Jones does put Kemp's playing time into a bit of a bind as well, since all signs point to Pierre getting a majority of ABs in left). Signing Jones doesn't take Pierre's 44 million dollar contract off of the table. It's a dumb signing, and furthers the notion that Ned Colletti is, in fact, pretty dumb humself when it comes to building a roster. He just keeps showing that he will not utilize his strong farm system. Yet, he won't use it to trade for younger players, in their prime or nearing it, either. He'd rather spend top dollar for "top talent." Bleck...

Sorry: that was needlessly long...

I don't think the Nats are at all close to being good. They have no pitching in the majors or high minors, and most of their good players are position players who aren't exactly young.

No disrespect intended, but you don't know a thing about the team.

(Unless your standard for being young is anyone under 21)

The pitching stinks, but there's potential there, if a few guys stay healthy (which they won't). But the pitching stunk last season, and the team did ok, all things considered. They only have 2 veteran retreads penciled into the rotation (Redding and Od. Perez). There are a few mid-career vets (like Patterson and Hill), and they're relying on a bunch of kids, none of whom project to be stars, but one or two of them should be able to handle the back of the rotation -- they just have to figure out which ones those are.

They're likely to suck this year, but there's a TON of potential and a bunch of players who could break out. I wouldn't bet on it, and I don't think they're going to win the division -- you're right, it's a tough one -- but they're not going to be a 100-loss laughingstock either, just like they weren't going to be one last year.

That isn't entirely Bowden's fault, but I do think he's been too hesitant when trading guys like Soriano for prospects.
We need to put this baby to bed. There WERE NO GOOD OFFERS. The only halfway decent offer reported was something on Baseball Prospectus, which was specifically refuted by Stan Kasten.

Keeping Soriano gave them two draft picks, which they turned into Josh Smoker and Jordan Zimmermann, two pitchers ranked VERY highly by BA and Sickels, etc.

The Nats did better by NOT trading him than they would've had they settled for the beans other teams were throwing their way.

the cliff-falling of guys like Pierre, when it happens, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with speed or how good a shape they are in. It's due to the fact that they have no power so once the BA starts to slip as they age, they're pretty useless. This is obviously doubly true if they have to be pushed to a corner. Obviously, for someone like Pierre, speed plays a factor in his BA (all those infield hits) and ability to play CF but all it takes is for him to lose a little bat speed. Assuming Jones holds the CF position, this is Pierre's last year as a "starter" (I wouldn't bet on him making it through this year), barring a trade to another team to be their CF. Given the contract (and maybe even without it) he will hang on as a 4th/5th OF.

You'll also note that guys like Javier and Nixon took walks, which Pierre has not shown. In his career-to-date, Pierre has hit 301 but managed just a league-average OBP. Thanks to learning patience, Nixon didn't have a below-average OBP from ages 31-39 (usually well-above). Javier's career OBP is 14 points above league-average and he was generally well above it from age 26.

By the way, Nixon didn't so much "hang on" as he suddenly learned to hit for average at the age of 32. Go figure.

Pierre's comps are a humorous bunch. The only player who started post-war is Wilson. 7 of them are pre-1920. Even Willie Wilson carried a 102 OPS+ through age 29 (Pierre is 84). Wilson actually did just "fine" after that, hanging on for 9 years and over 1000 games ... putting up Pierre-ish numbers with an 83 OPS+ but below-average OBP but more "power" than Pierre.

Will Pierre collapse to the point where he's out of the league within 2 years? No, probably not, due to contract and reputation and, if he can continue to hit 280-290 and play some CF, he is a decent 4/5 OF. But his career as a starter is coming to a very quick close I'd bet. He's already a guy with no power who can't post a league-average OBP. There's little future in that no matter how fast you are. (Yes, his future is brighter than a slow guy with that profile)

Ironically, Pierre's contract is likely to hurt his playing time. If the Dodgers could just cut him or trade him cheaply, he'd probably already be on another (not too good) team as their starting CF. As is, the Dodgers won't be able to trade him without eating most of the contract and still not getting anything worthwhile in return, in which case they might as well eat the salary with him as their 4th/5th OF.

No disrespect intended, but you don't know a thing about the team.

Chris, we've had this argument several times already. My basic premise is that Nats are still a ways off from contending, and for the past two years, and probably for this one that has been true. Getting good seasons out of Soriano, Dmitri Young, or trading for Austin Kearns isn't related to building a contender.

Out of their position players on the roster now, they have 3 guys who are exciting down the road. Zimmerman, Dukes, and Milledge. All of the other positions are being filled by veterans who probably won't be around when the Nats do contend. That's a lot of holes they are going to need to fill over the next couple of years, and I don't think their farm system is going to be able to do both that and put a pitching staff together.

I won't necessarily argue with that. They definitely are a bit away from a 90+ win team.

That being said, please for the love of Manny Acta, please stop trotting out the Soriano thing. You mention that, you have no credibility no matter how sensible anything else you have to say is. It's just piling on for the sake of piling on, but it's also wrong.

At the same time, getting good seasons out of Soriano, Dmitri, or Austin Kearns, given those very same holes you're pointing out, isn't hurting anything. In Kearns' case, he's got a chance to be around for 5+ years, so it's not a complete waste. In Dmitri's case, who's he taking PT away from? Larry Broadway? Josh Whitesell? Meh. And trading Soriano -- as much as few around here want to admit it -- was a damn good move. He got a very good player AND two draft picks out of the deal, picks that he wouldn't have had had he kept Wilkerson around.

They've shown a willingness to invest in the farm, going above slot on a number of picks the last few years. And they've picked up a few solid prospects; by 2010, they should be feeling the first fruits of these last two drafts, while kids like Chico, Lannan or Clippard fight it out to see who can handle the back half of a rotation (or, god willing!, be even better).