User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6184 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The Pierre signing was a dumb idea from the beginning... but is there any evidence that he's the horror we all projected him to be? Is there any evidence that he's not learning on the job?
Nah. She's not hot.
My thoughts on Colletti are pretty well known; just check the archives. But I'll sum them up:
1. I wasn't a fan early, but he seems to have learned. Refusing to give credit to the GM behind the best Dodgers run in 30 years seems ludicrous.
2. His biggest mistakes came when McCourt handed over the checkbook, so all these money-neutral moves might've saved Colletti from himself.
3. For all the talk of the prospects traded away, the one that has done the most damage in the majors is Cody Ross. And no one is regretting the loss of Ross.
4. As for what Colletti was getting in return for the trades, that's improved over the years. We've gone from Mark Hendrickson and Toby Hall to Manny.
5. I can't help but wonder if the front office of Colletti, Ng and Logan White is greater than the sum of their parts.
And calling Kershaw a prospect is ridiculous. In that case, so is Matt Kemp, and we should trade him for David Eckstein.
Just look at the Garland trade.
I can't believe I'm saying it but I guess I approve of Ned Colletti. White or Ng may be better, but Colletti has done pretty well.
Clearly you all need to get out of your mother's basements and...I don't know, I'm not quite sure what's outside of my mother's basement, but it's probably something very rewarding. I, however, am too lazy to find out.
And as far as signing Blake, they could have, but they decided to give LaRoche a shot. I respect that. It's probably the right thing to have done. It failed, because LaRoche is a steaming tower of fail, and then they made the best of what they had. Could they have done even better? Maybe. But, as they say, all's well that ends well, and they ended in first place. Twice.
Hasn't that been established that Colletti is, or was at least, working under the constraint he couldn't add salary?
Are you going to acknowledge that, or are you declaring he deserves none of the credit yet all of the blame?
That's why we play the games.
It's good news for the Giants, though . . .
He also has an ideal profile as a switch-hitting catcher with patience, power and defensive ability. A scout with a National League club called Santana's throwing arm "the best in the league," grading it a 70 on the 20-80 scale, and he threw out 30 percent of opposing baserunners and is agile behind the plate, though his receiving skills need polish.
The Martinez comparison doesn't really work defensively as Santana is much more athletic. (And I don't need to tell you how ridiculous it is to judge the entirety of a catcher's defense by one minor league season's worth of passed balls, particularly when passed balls are almost always the pitcher's fault.)
a) Fielders in the minors are worse than fielders in the majors.
b)The scout was only measuring his throwing arm, not his technique on actually throwing out runners.
Like all the catching prospects that come out of the Dodgers system, Santana was an infielder who was converted to catcher. (NOT the other way around as you seem inclined to believe.) Since moving permanently to catcher he's played 200 games behind the plate and exactly 6 at other positions. I don't see what's worrisome about that; in any case, it's darn silly to extrapolate a defensive evaluation out of it.
Neither broke out after the trades. Santana hit .323/.431/.563 with a 59/69 K/BB in 99 games for the Dodgers A+ club before going to Cleveland. Bell was at .296/.386/.497 at AA before being sent to the O's.
I'm confused. Trading prospects who haven't broken out for established talent is bad now? What do you do with them when they never break out?
And I'll echo someone else -- if Colletti's problem is not getting good return for prospects, what does that say about Logan White's evaluation of those prospects? Or do you actually think Colletti doesn't ask him for advice? Or do you have evidence that he ignored Logan White?
For the record, that "steaming tower of fail" was pretty much a league-average starter this year. A .731 OPS, with a plus glove per UZR.
The pitchers are usually not good at holding runners on in the minors, either, and often will be encouraged not to focus on that, even if they are good at it. Base stealing percentage is one of those indirect indicators of the level of play. No one ever gets caught stealing in Little League or Babe Ruth/Senior Little League ball, few get caught in high school, etc.
I haven't seen Santana, but Victor Martinez runs very well for a catcher, and I'm sure he'd be a decent third baseman if he had some time to work at it. If Santana has a good arm, but really does have a passed ball problem, and is much more athletic than Martinez, third base sounds like a very good option.
Is there even an arena where Blake was useful to the Dodgers last year? Look at his numbers in the playoffs and in August and September. He was hardly the reason for the turnaround, and it's hilarious that anybody would use his "contributions" to justify trading away those two minor leaguers.
Well this is exactly the point, isn't it?
Why leave him in charge if he can only be an effective GM when you hamstring his spending and have to delegate increased power to assistants and yourself as an owner?
Sure, in the same way that almost anybody could piggyback off one of the best crops of cost controlled talent in decades. You could make the argument that if they had a GM that wasn't completely incompetent when he had the most control over personnel decisions that they wouldn't have to be bargain hunting because they wouldn't constantly have 3-4 albatross contracts.
Anyway, if you guys really want to pursue it, you can come to my site and discuss it with me there in the comments section or something, but my assertion that Ned Colletti isn't a very good GM has basis, IMO. It's not just some "let's blindly throw out stereotypes" type of deals.
They have yet to get much either, other than Manny, who even the most delusional individual would have to admit is a once in a lifetime type of circumstance that initiated that whole circus act. Ethier was the best move of his GM career to date, because that was completely out of his own volition. Not so shockingly, Logan White recommended that, as he stated in an interview.
And I miss Edwin Jackson.
Again, talent evaluation and resource management. You trade away players that will be #1 and #2 in their organizations, and you get a reliever and 2 months of an above average third baseman that performed below average. Meanwhile, the Brewers got 2 months of Sabathia impersonating God and the Phillies got 1 1/2 years of Lee. Hmm...
Playing third base? I mean, you're right - I didn't realize how thoroughly mediocre he was at the end of last year. But he was still better than DeWitt or LaRoche probably would have been, and he's been very good this year.
Regardless, I'm not trying to say that Blake is to the Dodgers what Albert Pujols is to the Cardinals. I'm just saying that he's already shown to be a solid player, and he's got another couple of years on his contract to add to that. If he totally tanks, then I'll have to eat some feet, but if he continues like he's done this year then those prospects will have to do quite a bit in order to make that trade look dumb.
However, he is getting some Bartlett-esque coverage in the press, and I don't agree with that - I don't think that he is singlehandedly responsible for the Dodgers making the playoffs through a magical medley of manliness and good vibes. But he's definitely helped.
Bell's status is more due to the Orioles' total lack of position player prospects than it is his own ability. If Johnson added to his fastball, it happened "after" he was traded, not before - and that speaks to the player development in LA's farm system more than anything else (something that I think has been an issue for a long time, BTW).
LA's top prospects at this point (IMO, and not in order) are Martin, Miller, Lambo, and Robinson, and I'd take all of those guys over Bell or Johnson.
-- MWE
Well, sure, but there's a dividing line somewhere, isn't there? Would you trade Stephen Strasburg for David Eckstein? Of course not. There are some trades where the prospect is good enough and the MLB guy mediocre enough that the trade simply isn't worth it. The Blake-Santana trade is almost a textbook example of that.
Mike, Dee Gordon is pretty easily the Dodgers' top prospect, and Chris Withrow is probably second. I'd be shocked if those two guys aren't 1-2 when Baseball America's (or Kevin Goldstein's) list comes out.
* - Of course, there are times, such as early in a team's success cycle, when the best way to form that winner is by collecting talent of all shapes and sizes. Get players now; sort 'em out later.
Only in hindsight. Santana had hit poorly in stints in the Midwest League and FSL - granting that those are two tough leagues for hitters - and it was not unreasonable to think that at least part of his so-called "breakout" in 2008 had to do with being in the California League - after all, the only other place he had hit that well before was in the Pioneer League. Santana was a decent prospect before last year because he was a catcher and he had a good walk rate, but he was more like a 21-30 range guy (he didn't even make Sickels's top 20, for example); it wasn't until after he went to the Indians' organization and continued to hit that he jumped way up onto the radar.
-- MWE
I know why people think that way, but I don't see it. Gordon right now is about where Robinson was a year ago, and Robinson took a big step forward this year because he started driving the ball rather than playing slap-and-dash; Gordon's going to have to start doing some of that if he wants to succeed at higher levels. Withrow and Martin are at about the same place, also, and because Withrow still looks to me like an injury waiting to happen I put him below Martin even though he's ahead of him on the food chain. I would put both of them a notch below the other four - but still ahead of Bell and Johnson.
-- MWE
i'm sure its irksome to see that his gambles have paid off -- two straight div titles and two straight trips to NLCS have got to be classed as wins -- but i can't help but feel he's done quite a job of making the best of what could have been a really bad situation.
Bagwell-Andersen didn't work out well for the Red Sox. Larry Anderson pitched well, but two months of a middle reliever is basically worthless in almost all circumstances. The Red Sox won the division by two games. I doubt Anderson was worth even one of those wins.
Now, Schilling+Brady Anderson for Mike Boddicker, the deal the Red Sox had made two years earlier, is a good example of the type of deal you're talking about. Boddicker was fantastic for half a season in 1988 when they traded for him, and the Sox won the division by a game. In 1990, they had Boddicker all year and won the division by two games. Schilling was traded two more times before he really amounted to anything. Brady Anderson did have a very good career for Baltimore, though he didn't have his first really good year until several years after being traded. The Red Sox probably got the worst player in that deal, and only got him for two and a half years, to boot, but it was a good move, both in terms of judging it at the time, and judging it by its end results.
And the Dodgers were already regretting that trade 4 months later. If not to replace Martin than to use as a bargaining chip to acquire a better piece than Casey Blake for 2 months.
It's not so cut and dry as to say that what the MLB club needs takes precedent over prospects. What if the Dodgers had gone down that route with the current roster? Do people forget when Matt Kemp/Clayton Kershaw/Chad Billingsley/Jonathan Broxton/etc were all "just prospects" and everybody was throwing them around to be dealt for "veterans"? Meh.
Do I prefer big league success over prospects? Absolutely, but prospects can lead to big league success, hence, I wish to keep prospects over rending mediocre veterans or other players that are easily replaceable from within. Like what did Blake show before last year or what did he do in those 2 months to suggest that he led to the Dodgers making the playoffs or being in the NLCS? He was an average player before the deal and below average after. I can't see any possible way that the trade wasn't dumb at the time and dumb in retrospect. Santana could bomb in the majors and it would still be pointless because he carried value that could have been used better.
Okay, right now the Dodgers could use a lefty pen arm that's not as inexperienced as Elbert. Does that mean they should have packaged Withrow/Gordon for Damaso Marte? No, of course not, and why? Because it's poor asset management. You want to take the chance that those 1-3 innings he might pitch in this series is worth 12 years of cost controlled talent for MAJOR LEAGUE contributions? I don't.
Which is funny, because he could have used that "good prospect who hasn't even gotten past AA" to help the team acquire a marquee starting pitcher this year to help solve that "bigger problem". Santana was the single player left in that system who would have been established at an advanced minors level, which is much more appealing to a club than saying "well these low-A, high-A guys are probably good even though they have like 10 starts in their career".
The four players you mentioned are still Dodgers, but I await an explanation on why Colletti gets no credit for that.
Yes. This year. When he was signed as a FA. Meaning the Dodgers didn't have to trade prospects to sign Blake as a free agent. The 08 Dodgers version wasn't a good player for the team, and likely didn't make a difference between that team making the playoffs or not.
Edit: Another example is the Garland trade. Was it really necessary to trade Tony Abreu for Garland? Or to trade for Garland in the first place? At that point the Dodgers were a near lock to make the post season, and his starting spot could have been taken by Stults(who is just like a left handed version of Garland), or Heager. Or hell, even Weaver.
Holy freaking hyperbole.
1) I want you to describe for me the plausible scenario in which Carlos Santana never plays a game above AA.
2) Being thrilled with the current team's success and thinking one of their trades unwise are nowhere near mutually exclusive things.
What? The Dodgers gave Blake the highest contract bid this year at $17 million/3 years, where the next highest were the Twins at 2 years/$14 million. Unless your contention is that Blake would have gone to the Twins regardless, your logic doesn't fly.
And Gold Star, its the freaking opportunity cost. 1)The potential of 6 years of Carlos Santana is probably worth more then 2 months of Casey Blake. 2) The Dodgers traded Santana so the Indians would pick up Blake's contract for the rest of the year.
This idea of trading the top prospects of the system just to get other teams to pick up salaries is just going to bite us in the ass.
Whose career is not exactly over. (And incidentally, given that Santana's mastered AA, what level would he be playing at when he broke that leg?)
Not to mention which, for a career to end suddenly at age 23 is nearly impossible even with a severely broken leg. He may never be the same, yada yada, I understand that, but we're looking for a situation -- a plausible situation -- in which he never plays a game above AA.
Simply put, there is none.
Everyone is happy with the Dodgers' success; I'm fairly sure we can agree on that. But what's being disputed are the methods/philosophies on how this winner is being constructed. Tripon and kensai, you seem concerned the Dodgers are mortgaging the future for an uncertain present - is that correct?
But what I'm saying is, it's been more than 20 years since the team's last trip to the World Series, and so I don't think we have the liberty of watching potential postseason windows close because it might lead to a lousy future. After all, until about 2004, our present wasn't so hot either.
I recall having this argument last year, but with scareduck. At one point, he asked if anyone really thought the Dodgers had a chance in the playoffs; I replied, I like our odds far better than the D-backs. And I'll stick with that belief: A team must do what it can to make noise in the postseason when the opportunity presents itself because the payoff is so, so worth it.
Nah, none of those things ever happen.
I'd like to hope God is a little more in touch with these events...
I think it is highly unlikely that any given prospect is the future star that is being claimed. No one is "can't miss".
Remember, we're talking about the Cleveland Indians here. Starring in gay porn would just make him one of the guys.
What other ones? Who needed 3rd baseman at the time? It wasn't like the Indians were going to try to resign Blake. I doubt two months with the Dodgers swayed Blake decision to such a degree. He was a free agent, and the Dodgers offered the most money. Trying to imagine him declining an even bigger offer from another team because of *two* months with the Dodgers just seem odd. The dude is not sentimental, he only got regular playing time when he turned 29 years old, he was 35 at the end of the 2008 season. He was not going to decline the biggest offer for him.
Also, are we sure about DeWitt's glove being far better? I know DeWitt is a fine fielder (was, anyway - been a while since I've watched him), but I've seen nothing wrong with Blake. A comparison of the men's ratio of DPs to Es (a quick/dirty measure of 3B defense) in 2008: DeWitt, 19-8; Blake, 10-2. In 2009, Blake was at 32-10.
As for DeWitt as a fielder:In 2008: The Fielding Bible had him at +11 plays in +/-(tied for 6th best), UZR/150 had him at 8.5.
Casey Blake: UZR/150 has his defense with the Indians/Dodgers at -6.3. I can't find what he did for +/- in 2008 since I don't own an account to Bill James' website.
But Blake DeWitt is a better fielder than Casey Blake is. At least certainly in 2008, where Casey Blake himself admits that he was injured before he was traded. Which is also a great part of the trade.
freak injuries does not equal plausibility.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main