Interestingly enough, the Yankees are out of the playoffs with a record of 87-71, while Torre and the Dodgers are headed to face either the Cubs or the NL East champ with a record of 83-75.

Heh.

Has anyone told Hank Steinbrenner yet that the Dodgers are making the playoffs with a worse record than the Yankees? I can't imagine he would let something like that pass unnoticed.

Colletti gets a lot of flak and deservedly so but no GM did better during the season, IMHO.

Underrated trade for the Dodgers - getting Berroa for a pro-rated portion of league minimum and a warm body - he struggled at first, but hit .257/.329/.365 after the all star game - turning a huge hole for the team into a manageable hole at least. The Blake and Ramirez trades he gave up value for, but Berroa was as close to a free pickup as could be.

I am not a Colletti fan, but his pickup of Manny was awesome. And despite what a lot of Dodger fans think, he did really well in giving up only LaRoche for Manny, whether they re-sign him or not. To his credit, there were rumors that if he wanted a decent hitter, he'd have to give up Kershaw, Kemp or Ethier and he stuck to his guns and gave up none of them.

WTF? I do not get giving up a lot of good young players for a two-month rental.

I have a contempt for Ned Colletti the way some Primates around here have contempt for Todd Jones or Curt Schilling or [insert whipping boy here], but even I must grudgingly admit that he managed his moves extremely well within the season itself. Pierre, A. Jones, blah blah blah...godawful moves and we all know it. Ironically enough however, once McCourt put him on a leash and forced him to work without a $$$ advantage, he got inventive.

Andy LaRoche is looking, as of right now, to be precisely the sort of talented-but-unmotivated bust that some within the organization predicted he would be. Manny will either move somewhere else in the offseason or become L.A.'s headcase problem if they sign him, but he's been a ridiculously fantastic acquisition given that he came for free. Kuroda is an offseason gain that turns out to have been quite smart, and against all expectations Joe "Veteran" Torre played TEH KIDZ just because, well, they were better.

Maybe he got lucky. Hell, let's be honest: he got lucky. But we are fans of a sport that is ultimately a results-based industry, and Colletti got the results that Josh Byrnes, with his smart acquisitions of Haren, Dunn, and Rauch, did not get. It's gotta count for something in the end.

scareduck, when your ownership is leveraged to the hilt and the few million a division title will bring your company this quarter is needed just to keep the ship afloat, what is not to understand?

Seriously...

Ramirez for the Dodgers: .398/.491/.757
LaRoche for the Pirates: .153/.224/.240

Without that trade, the Dodgers sit at home this October.

Manny Ramirez will have a walk-off hit in the postseason and then sign a huge deal with the Yankees.

The Manny trade also could net the Dodgers draft picks and the Dodgers have Dewitt at thirdbase how has surpassed LaRoche.

Also, part of the reason you want young pre-arb players is money and Manny has made the Dodgers a lot of money.

Scareduck, you really should read up on arbitration and draft pick rules, and instead of saying WTF, you will understand why it is sometimes ok to give up good young players for two month rentals who can potentially take you to the World Series. Without considering what Manny has done this year, you can make the argument that the two draft picks the Dodgers will get are more valuable than LaRoche at this point.

The Manny trade also could net the Dodgers draft picks and the Dodgers have Dewitt at thirdbase how has surpassed LaRoche.

Actually, Dewitt will likely be the starting second baseman next year, with Kent retiring. The Dodgers will yet again have a hole at third base, unless they resign Casey Blake.

agree with the general tone of the thread re colletti's work in-season. a chance to make the playoffs and only give up laroche and some spare parts? no-brainer. with ariz and colo not showing much, a win-now move was in order. in hindsight, it looks even better ... potential downside is that dodgers are stuck with colletti for a while (he won!) and so might have to endure another bonehead FA move. crazy game.

I'm just glad that scum won't be celebrating in San Francisco

no-brainer

Yes, you need to have no brain to make that move.

Two young players = Two-month rental hitting at an MVP level + draft picks + postseason revenue.
What's not to like?
Seriously, scare, you would've done what?

Clearly he would have signed Andruw Jones to a six year extension. It's win-win. The Dodgers get an outfielder as more than a "rental," and they don't give up any prospects. Scareduck is very good at this.

If the Dodgers lose tonight, do they go batshit crazy and start jumping around after the final out and then dump champagne on the female reporters in the clubhouse? They clinched!

I was hoping they'd drink before the game, and then take the field like nine drunk Russian high-jumpers.

Here's to the Dodgers getting revenge for 1916. I would also be happy with a rematch of 1965.

#17 - wha? Does anybody in this room think the Dodgers are going to win it all?

The Dodgers now MUST re-sign Manny AT LEAST. I give this a 40% chance of happening (which is maybe optimistic).

Druw was a very bad move, one I opposed at the time. The Dodgers' ultimate problem is they're jettisoning talent faster than they can promote it to the big club. Manny introduced a hole at 3rd they will have to fill in 2009 (Blake is going back to Cleveland in 2009 almost certainly).

Does anybody in this room think the Dodgers are going to win it all?

Whether we think it or not, it certainly could happen. They've been on a roll in September, and some of the recent pennant and WS winners haven't been the likeliest candidates, that's for sure.

It's really easy to end up looking stupid if you claim to know what's going to happen in the playoffs.

Why such a bad trade? LaRoche isn't a great prospect with what he's done this year, just a good one, who the Dodgers will be able to replace with two high draft picks; they have an excellent farm director making the picks, too. Almost for free, they also get two months of Ramirez and make the post-season.

There's an argument to be made for holding onto LaRoche, too: it says that they need him next year, with Kent's retirement and a hole at third base. It says that he's a cheap, probably good bat for that position. In my opinion, that's not something worth holding onto at a short-term loss, since it's easily replaced, especially for a team with money (and whether or not the Dodgers are in, for a team in their market, with their payroll, financial trouble is irrelevant to that assessment--their payroll is over $90 million, so an average hitter for third or second base is something they can easily get).

Now, trading any prospect better than LaRoche would have been a bad move.

Wow, Vaux, a guy with a career .294/.380/.517 minor league line is, in your bizarro view, "cheap, probable good bat" that's somehow "not worth holding onto".

Steve Phillips, is that you?

it says that they need him next year, with Kent's retirement and a hole at third base

Or they could keep DeWitt at third, and acquire a FA second baseman. Most second basemen don't seem to command big bucks on the FA market.

Wow, Vaux, a guy with a career .294/.380/.517 minor league line is, in your bizarro view, "cheap, probable good bat" that's somehow "not worth holding onto".

That's a raw line from mostly high-altitude cities. But I didn't say I'd cut him or trade him for Turk Wendell. I said he's not worth keeping instead of trading for Manny Ramirez as the only thing going the other way.

I referred to that possibility in the penultimate sentence of my post, NTN. I should have made it clearer, though.

scareduck, your logic is sound, sort of. but it would simply not have resulted in the dodgers taking the division. you seriously think holding onto laroche and looking to some future payoff was preferable? there's no combination of shuffling players and possible FA acquisitions that can cover the loss of laroche? are you going to boycott the playoffs over this? fine, i will concede that signing manny next year is not a given. but where will the dodgers be if they don't keep him and blake? pretty much where they were before the trades, only without laroche. i don't see that as some major disaster.
we already had that with the pierre and jones deals. and, again, i'll admit it scares me to think what might happen in the off season.
but the ramirez deal worked.

#27 - 568 AB's of it in the FSL. Wake me when that's a high-offense league.

There are times to roll the dice, and there are times not to. LA management correctly perceived that the D Backs were vulnerable, and that Manny was the missing piece for their offense. I think that Scareduck is simply not appreciating that this is a business, and that in a business sense, it was imperative for the McCourt ownership to give his fan base a playoff series.

Just two home games in the playoffs is worth at least 10 million to their franchise, probably a good deal more.

And finally, the Dodgers RIGHT NOW, are just as good as any other NL team. Since August 1, they lead the National League in OPS with an .801 mark. (Cubs are second with a .796 mark and Mets are 3rd with a .784 OPS since August 1.

On the pitching side of the ledger, since August 1 they are second with a team ERA of 3.67, behind only Milwaukee's 3.47 and ahead of 3rd ranked Philly with a 3.72 Team ERA.

Any talk of sample size or regression is moot. This is not the same roster and lineup construction as the team they were fielding before August 1, and the pitching has been good all year. Dodgers are just as big a threat to get to the W.S. as any other team. They also have some kind of weird Manny Mojo going on that is hard to describe, but it's there, and it gives them CONFIDENCE, which is a concept that is much maligned perhaps, but still important.

#28 - Ned has consistently traded kids for vetruhns every damn time. Edwin Jackson, Dioner Navarro, Carlos Santana (who may end up the number one prospect in the Indians system next year) ... Ned thows out prospects at an astonishing clip, and frequently for rentals, often of dubious quality (hullo, Danys Baez).

agree.

but laroche is not those guys. don't mean to harp on him, i have no idea about the upside of the other players in the deal.

and what shoewizard said. they will have revenue and other resources to draw on to make up for whatever they gave away to get a division title.

and if ned manages to blow it next year, i'll be as upset as anybody else. but he earned the little honeymoon he'll get now for what he did over the last couple of months.

Actually, I think it was a brilliant trade by Ned. That AA utility infielder he sent over to the Pirates that he SAID was LaRoche (brother Adam was obviously in on the deception), while he kept the real LaRoche... that's genius!

I've seen a lot of the Pirates games lately (vs. the Cubs and Brewers), and, man, Mordecai Brown could count on his pitching hand how many times I've seen that person hit the ball on the screws. His swing looks pretty bad.

Do you think the Pirates will catch on eventually?

I thought part of the Manny trade involved LA agreeing not to offer him arb (i.e. no picks netted when he walks). Boras understands that if buyers have to give up picks to get Manny, that lowers Manny's FA $ value. In fact wasn't this part of why he demanded to get out of Boston? They didn't extend him, or pick up his option and were obviously just going to offer him arb, let him go and scoop up the picks.

Am I mistaken about that?

From what I heard, the agreement was that the Dodgers don't exersize Manny's option, and in return the Dodgers get to offer arbitration, which Manny will decline.

There are times to roll the dice, and there are times not to. LA management correctly perceived that the D Backs were vulnerable, and that Manny was the missing piece for their offense. I think that Scareduck is simply not appreciating that this is a business, and that in a business sense, it was imperative for the McCourt ownership to give his fan base a playoff series.

Whee. So, a one-year, one-time shot at the postseason. And what do they do next year when both Casey Blake and Manny are in, respectively, Cleveland and Mets uniforms?

#30: The Rockies, last October, were RIGHT THEN, by FAR the best team in MLB. Didn't help in the Series much, did it?

I recall 1984, , the Tigers won 104 games, and their opponents the KC Royals were a bearely-above avg club, but they and the media kept saying that "since May 22" or some such date, the Royals record was actually BETTER, as if that made them the favorites or something.

Hisotry has taught me not to put a lot of stock in recent performance. Yes, the Dodgers are better now than a 85-win club. I sure don't expect them to beat the Cubs tho, nor even the Phillies.

#36: Uh... same thing they would have done anyway, except without LaRoche's anemic bat?

And what do they do next year when both Casey Blake and Manny are in, respectively, Cleveland and Mets uniforms?

Use the draft picks from Manny, and Blake to restock the farm system. Blake might end as a type A player, even: he was the highest ranked type B after 2007, and his points total would have barely have gotten him ranked a type A in the NL.

Either sign a stop gap like Crede, or trade some prospects, the loss of which should be covered by the draft picks from Manny and Blake, for Adrian Beltre.

And what do they do next year when both Casey Blake and Manny are in, respectively, Cleveland and Mets uniforms?

Use the draft picks from Manny, and Blake to restock the farm system. Blake might end as a type A player, even: he was the highest ranked type B after 2007, and his points total would have barely have gotten him ranked a type A in the NL.

Either sign a stop gap like Crede, or trade some prospects, the loss of which should be covered by the draft picks from Manny and Blake, for Adrian Beltre.

You forgot to add use the playoff revenue money to sign Adrian Beltre. ;)

I actually think Ned has done well this season as well. He never did make the boneheaded trade so many here were attacking him for preemptively. The Jones signing was a disaster but I still maintain it was defensible at the time. Hell, even our other whipping boy, Brian Sabean, has righted the ship somewhat in SF, too. Sometimes we really are too hard on these guys. I don't mean to point the finger as I've been guilty of throwing rocks many, many times. I'm going to work on cutting down on that.

And finally, the Dodgers RIGHT NOW, are just as good as any other NL team. Since August 1, they lead the National League in OPS with an .801 mark. (Cubs are second with a .796 mark and Mets are 3rd with a .784 OPS since August 1.

This is a good point. I don't think I can stomach FOX--even muted--if the WS is Dodgers/Red Sox.

This is a good point. I don't think I can stomach FOX--even muted--if the WS is Dodgers/Red Sox.

I'm just going to pretend this isn't a possibility. Do dee do dee do. All is well. All is happy...

Anyone know why Maddux did not start last night?

I have a colleague, huge Maddux backer, who has been drooling all year at the prospect of Mad Dog passing Clemens in career wins. If Greg is hurt, he won't get it in 08. But I wonder if somehow he got 'bumped' a day or two just so he didn't have to try to get his last win against Peavy? :)

I love how some folks (or folk) here are simply cutting bait on LaRoche when he's finally seeing regular MLB action for the first time EVER in his career. Never mind the laughable comparison between LaRoche & Manny post-trade -- LaRoche was a part-time starter at best in LA this year (59 ABs in 27 games), even when DeWitt was cratering (thank you, failing economy).

don't quite get your point. laroche has been pretty bad in pittsburgh. are you saying he wasn't given enough of a chance and so because the dodgers didn't give him that chance they ruined him?

I'm saying that this is LaRoche's first prolonged exposure to MLB pitching, and not everyone gets it in their first 200+ ABs.

Anyone know why Maddux did not start last night?

Reports state that he was simply bumped, and will start Saturday instead. I can't find a very specific reason for this, so your theory might be correct.

I'm saying that this is LaRoche's first prolonged exposure to MLB pitching, and not everyone gets it in their first 200+ ABs.

I don't get your point either.

So LaRoche stands to get better. Sure. He can hardly get worse. So what? Having a shitty player who might get better later wouldn't help the Dodgers this year.

So LaRoche stands to get better. Sure. He can hardly get worse. So what? Having a shitty player who might get better later wouldn't help the Dodgers this year.

Suddenly a top prospect with a .400 OBP in the upper regions of the minors becomes a shitty player when he plays his rookie season with a torn thumb ligament?

This is silly. You could think LaRoche has a chance to be very good eventually, and still think that, since he isn't yet, it was worth it to trade him for a player who not only is good right now, but was an absolutely massive factor in increasing fan interest and in getting your team into the playoffs. I questioned this trade at the time too. The way both guys have played, I was wrong almost no matter what LaRoche goes on to do in the future, unless he becomes Jeff Bagwell.

Does anybody in this room think the Dodgers are going to win it all?
Dunno.
But I do know the D-Backs are not.