Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Devil Rays - Acquired Navarro

Tampa Bay Devil Rays - Acquired C Dioner Navarro and P Jae Seo from the Los Angeles Dodgers for P Mark Hendrickson and C Toby Hall.

Woo, a challenge trade!  Well, not much of a challenge for Andrew Friedman and Gerry Hunsicker, landing one of the Dodgers’ most obvious trading chips for an inadequate catcher and a swap of #5 starters.  It was long expected that the Dodgers would give up either Russell Martin or Navarro at some point, but most people, myself included, expected the team to finally pull the gun to address a need.

Hendrickson is having the best ERA of his career.  Why?


Hendrickson

Year           BABIP     ERA

Career       .301        5.21
2006         .252        3.81
Hmmm, something’s different, I just can’t quite put my finger on it…

Hendrickson, of course, remains Mark Hendrickson.  He’s still really tall.  He still has no fastball.  He still has a few other pitches of varying quality that batters swing out mainly out of boredom.

While Hendrickson should head down, Jae Seo should be heading back up and while neither are stars, just adequate #4/#5 starters.  In the long run, I’d put them about even (though Seo has more serfdom years left).

That leaves the trade as Toby Hall for Dioner Navarro.  If the Rays’ new braintrust can get contending teams to upgrade their players for free, they’ll be in contention in the AL East in no time.

Dan Szymborski Posted: June 27, 2006 at 08:28 PM | 118 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. ckash Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#2077950)
terrible...I wonder how the LA hacks like Plaschke will be able to blame this on DePo after this bomb.
   2. b-ball23 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#2077954)
Terrible trade by the Dodgers. They obviously felt like they "had to do something" and they paid a price. Hendrickson is a replacement level pitcher who is having a career year. I would bet that his ERA at the end of the season is no lower than 4.50.
   3. b-ball23 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2077960)
Check out this quote from the Dodgers front office in their "Inside the Dodgers" blog (http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/):
"More on the Hendrickson trade below...as for my "spin," I should have said that he has been one of the top lefties in the AL this season. There's no debating that, statisically. Plus, he's gotten 3.1 runs per game from his offense and I'm told from my counterpart over there that he could easily by 7-4 this year. An ERA under 4.00 in the AL is pretty impressive and it seems the turf in TB did not help his numbers. When he's on grass, he's pretty darn good."

You'd think that the guys running the front offices would know a thing or two player evaluation but it appears that most front offices just don't know what they're doing. It's sad that BTF could run a baseball team better than some franchies (i.e., Dodgers). It's fine that they want to trade Navarro, but they should be able to get better talent than a replacment level pitcher and catcher. It's like they just gave him and Seo (whose better than his performance thus far) away for nothing...sad.
   4. Steve Treder Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2077966)
They obviously felt like they "had to do something" and they paid a price.

This is what I don't get. Why did they feel this way? Why not just keep Navarro and Martin, at least for the next year or two, and see what happens with both of them?
   5. b-ball23 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#2077971)
Yeah, that's my point. They could have even platooned at the position like the Reds are doing with their three catchers (although for the past two years they've just been platooning Valentin and LaRue) and the production from the catching position would have been way above average. I'd like for Martin to get injured so I can see what Colleti (sp?) would do then...because if nothing else, Navarro was Martin's injury replacment. Now the Dodgers have Sandy Almoar and Toby Hall, both who are practically worthless. This trade just makes zero sense for the Dodgers.
   6. AROM Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#2077974)
I like the deal better for the D-Rays because of Navarro, but Hendrickson might be a good improvement on Seo.

David Pinto points out on BaseballMusings that there's a reason why Hendrickson's BABIP is lower: He's allowing fewer line drives. So maybe its not all luck. Both pitchers have been kind of up and down, but keep in mind that the American League is probably 10 games better than the NL. (see thread from a few days ago).
   7. JPWF13 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2077979)
terrible...I wonder how the LA hacks like Plaschke will be able to blame this on DePo after this bomb


blame?
I wouldn't be suprised if the LaLa sports media fauns over this deal as further evidence that Colletti is better than Depo and the dodgers are back on track- afterall he just traded an unproven (and injured) backup catcher and a bad starter for a proven experienced veteran catcher AND a solid lefty starter.
   8. b-ball23 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#2077980)
Allowing fewer line drives is not a skill. For batters, LD% is less luck and more skill because the luck is the percentage of line drives that go for hits. For pitchers, line drives and LD% is a lot more luck. It's up there with HR/FB. I understand that the AL is better, as MGL noted before, which helps Hendrickson's NERC or ERA even more, but it still doesn't change the fact that he is a replacement level pitcher. Seo, on the other hand, is not.
   9. Garth found his way to daylight Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:02 PM (#2077982)
The commenters on that team blog post seem to be pretty happy with the trade.

First comment:
Great trade for Hendrickson, way to go Ned !! But why another catcher unless someone is going to the minors or in another trade ?? Or are we going to cut Alomar loose ?? And who's the starting catcher now Martin or Hall ?? I'm sure Ned has his reasons so I'll sit back and wait.
Keep it going Ned !!
GO Dodgers !!!

Fifth comment:
I LOVE how Ned makes these trades and moves without giving up too much. I mean will anyone really miss navarro and seo? Not me. Kudos to Ned!!!

I wonder who runs that blog. As I'm a Royals fan, and they just started one of their own, I hope nobody important but an office stooge or intern. I kind of doubt anyone of importance is writing it, and so they're just doing what they can to spin the trade positively. I hope, for Dodgers' fans sake, that what b-ball quoted isn't actual rationale in the trade, but just someone in PR making a few stretching-the-truth statements.
   10. b-ball23 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:06 PM (#2077983)
Here's your answer: http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/about.html

"Different members of the front office will communicate to you directly through this blog, a sign of shifting times. It's a way for us to speak to you directly from the inner sanctum of a Major League Baseball franchise, as well as a way for us to hear directly from you, the fan.

Among the contributors will be the team's public relations director, Josh Rawitch, vice president of scouting and player development Roy Smith and team historian Mark Langill."
   11. Brandon in MO (Yunitility Infielder) Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#2077987)
Hendrickson

Overall: .254 of the balls hit into play have turned into hits (Dan forgets to exclude the two HBPs)

Home: .277 of balls hit into play became hits
Away: .233 of balls hit into play became hits

As for Hall..

Toby: .231 BA, .261 OBP, .398 SLG
Dino: .279 BA, .361 OBP, .380 SLG

That's Dino's career numbers too..

Hmm... let's see.. a 22 year old catcher who can hit but not throw or a 31 year old catcher who can't hit..

that's a tough one!

As for Seo.. his BIP rate is .295 for 2006 and .284 for his career.
   12. Passed Ball Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#2077992)
Bad trade for the Dodgers.
They didn't get any proven winners for the stretch run.
   13. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#2078000)
I seem to say this with every Devil Rays trade, but all it looks like they got was cheaper. When is the last time the D-Rays made a trade and took on payroll? I think the major feature of this trade, for Tampa, was the difference in contracts:

Hall + Hendrickson: $4.2 mill
Seo + Navarro $682,000
(numbers for 2006, courtesy of Cot's Baseball Contracts) And yes, I know the amount needs to be pro-rated.

I know we love it when a team picks up prospects, but jeez, not every single trade.

I've been a Red Sox fan for nearly 35 years, but would love to be able to root for the D-Rays when they can put a competitive team out on the field. BTW, "competitive", in the D-Ray lexicon, means "finish in fourth". I know about the new ownership, but they are looking like the same old ownership to me.

Kiss Carl Crawford goodbye, Tampa fans. He's next, and we'll get a basket full of minor leaguers for him. It's the Devil Ray way.
   14. JPWF13 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#2078001)
I've been looking at every nonstathead site where I can find Dodger posts-

The non-stathead concensus is that the Dodgers easily won the trade-

1: Hendrickson is a good lefty pitcher who will only get better.
[No, he may be lefty but he's not good, in fact he's pretty bad, if their is anyone who has been hit lucky it's him- his peripherals are exactly as they have always been, and likely to see an era north of 4.50 from here on out]

2: Seo is so bad it's addition by subtraction.
[Seo has pitched badly for LA- looking at the numbers it's mostly the result of an HR spike- if the spike is not temporary he's as bad as Hendrickson pre 2006- if the spike is just a small sample fluke he's still a better pitcher than Hendrickson- btw even with teh HR spike this year, overall his FIP#s are no worse than hendrickson's]

3: Hall is a good experienced veteran catcher
[no he's an experienced veteran catcher]

4: Navarro- well opinion seems to be split, some bloggers look at him and see nothing, some are concerned, thinking a good young catcher should get more in return...
[Navarro should have hauled in more than Hendrickson- if only because 22 year old catchers who paly good Dee and can hit MLB pitching are a bit less common that career 5.01 ERA pitchers]
   15. Garth found his way to daylight Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:34 PM (#2078012)
Here's your answer: http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/about.html

"Different members of the front office will communicate to you directly through this blog, a sign of shifting times. It's a way for us to speak to you directly from the inner sanctum of a Major League Baseball franchise, as well as a way for us to hear directly from you, the fan.

Among the contributors will be the team's public relations director, Josh Rawitch, vice president of scouting and player development Roy Smith and team historian Mark Langill."

Smith would be the only one even close to qualified to write on this, but I doubt he deals with trades at all. More likely, this is the PR man, or -- even better for Dodgers fans -- the team historian. For the sake of the franchise, that had better not have been the GM's final reasons for pulling the trigger.

Here's hoping, LAD fans.
   16. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2078020)
terrible...I wonder how the LA hacks like Plaschke will be able to blame this on DePo after this bomb.

Now watch - Hendrickson'll go 8-2 with a sub-4.00 ERA down the stretch and make Colletti look like a genius.

Hall has a little bit of power and a (IIRC) a very good defensive reputation. Unfortunately, he's on the wrong side of thirty - his long-term value isn't very high.

Isn't Navarro hurt?
   17. vortex of dissipation Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:48 PM (#2078025)
Hendrickson is a much better rebounder.
   18. caspian88 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 10:59 PM (#2078033)
Check out the Devil Rays official team message board - most of them hate this trade, mostly because they don't want to lose Hendrickson. It's really quite sad.
   19. Passed Ball Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:02 PM (#2078034)
Okay. I know this is a reach. But....

Considering that he -
Devoted a lot of his early career to hoops
Is left-handed
Has an atypical body type

What are the odds that he is just entering his prime?
(I'm not suggesting that Colletti took any of this into consideration)
   20. Dan Szymborski Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:10 PM (#2078039)
What are the odds that he is just entering his prime?

I would suggest pretty low. Hendrickson's not some guy with raw physical tools that haven't been harnessed.
   21. DCA Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#2078042)
What are the odds that he is just entering his prime?

I would suggest pretty high. I just don't think that prime is very high (maybe mediocre compared to awful).
   22. Dr Love Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:20 PM (#2078059)
I don't understand this deal. Mark Hendrickson is one of the few people in this world to make it to the top level of two major sports and manage to suck at both of them. He's not an innings eater, he's not a high strikeout guy... he sucks, plain and simple; but he's left handed, so he's got that going for him, but that's it. Toby Hall is Sandy Alomar Jr minus ten years, so I guess that's a bit of an improvement. This is the best that Coletti could get for Navarro and Seo? I'd like to think he could have gotten a better pitcher. I don't have a problem trading Navarro or Seo, but the return is completely lackluster.

Isn't Navarro hurt?

Yup, he's on the DL with a wrist injury.
   23. AROM Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:23 PM (#2078073)
What are the odds that he is just entering his prime?

I think he's got a chance. Some soft tossing lefties with good control last forever. Jamie Moyer wasn't any better through age 32, not to say that he's likely to follow a Moyer career path.
   24. Dr. Vaux Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:29 PM (#2078087)
The even more dangerous thing about this is that the Dodgers have a pretty good defense and a park that supresses home runs a little. So Hendrickson might put up an okay second half and trick Coletti into giving him a new contract.

Today is another good day for Diamondbacks fans. Arizona's the only organization in the division that has a decent minor league system and a clue about roster-building. In fact, no organization except them and LA has either one!
   25. DCA Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:30 PM (#2078091)
I don't understand this deal.

I understand this deal from both sides. What I don't understand is how anyone could think the Devil Rays didn't make out like bandits. Guys like Hendrickson are easily available for a modest FA salary in the offseason. But not midseason, so it makes sense that LA had to pay (I still think they paid too much, but Hendrickson has value when there aren't a dozen of him unsigned looking for a one-year deal or an NRI).

Tampa Bay doesn't need Hendrickson this year, so let him go. Sane with Hall, he's a shade better than the backup catcher brotherhood, but for how much longer?

Navarro may not pan out, and Seo might not be better going forward than Hendrickson. But there's a chance they will, and that chance alone is well worth what the Rays gave up. In fact, there's a good chance this deal improves the Rays for 2006.
   26. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:34 PM (#2078106)
[Navarro should have hauled in more than Hendrickson- if only because 22 year old catchers who paly good Dee and can hit MLB pitching are a bit less common that career 5.01 ERA pitchers]

This is what I don't understand. I'm not going to pretend to be his autobiographer, but I've seen Navarro play quite a bit this season and he seems absolutely horrible to me. Shockingly bad defense, and looks overmatched at the plate. In his favor, he can take a walk, and his numbers aren't bad - but it's only 75 ABs, so I don't know how much you can read into that. I wouldn't give up anything worthwhile for Navarro.
   27. caspian88 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:35 PM (#2078111)
"Some soft tossing lefties with good control last forever."

Hendrickson's control has been worse this year than any of the last three years.
   28. Passed Ball Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:39 PM (#2078124)
I wouldn't give up anything worthwhile for Navarro.

Check
   29. caspian88 Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:40 PM (#2078130)
"Some soft tossing lefties with good control last forever."

Hendrickson's control has been worse this year than any of the last three years.
   30. Dr Love Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#2078140)
the Dodgers have a pretty good defense and a park that supresses home runs a little.

Actually, Dodger stadium is an above average HR park (if you define average as a 1.00 park factor rating, if you go by rank it's in the middle of the pack), slightly higher than Tropicana Field.

What I don't understand is how anyone could think the Devil Rays didn't make out like bandits.

Well, in order to think that they won the trade by that much, you'd have to think that Dioner Navarro is some great prospect. Personally, I don't see it (he's put up solid numbers in the minors, but nothing earth shattering) but understand that some do.
   31. Steve Treder Posted: June 27, 2006 at 11:54 PM (#2078176)
Well, in order to think that they won the trade by that much, you'd have to think that Dioner Navarro is some great prospect. Personally, I don't see it (he's put up solid numbers in the minors, but nothing earth shattering) but understand that some do.

He isn't Johnny Bench, but what I don't get is all the dismissiveness of Navarro. Here's his record:

- At 17, in the Rookie League, he hit 280/345/406.
- At 18/19, in Class A, he hit 262/341/400.
- At 19/20, in AA, he hit 302/369/415.
- At 20/21, in AAA, he hit 260/349/379.
- At 21/22, in the majors, he's hit 279/361/380.

I don't know what isn't to like. This guy has showed consistent ability to get on base everywhere he's played, and has marched right up the ladder with nary a setback. He's still a freaking baby. And as he matures, it isn't at all unreasonable to expect him to begin to develop some power.

This is a very, very nice-looking young catcher.
   32. Dr Love Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:00 AM (#2078210)
I don't know what isn't to like. This guy has showed consistent ability to get on base everywhere he's played, and has marched right up the ladder with nary a setback. He's still a freaking baby. And as he matures, it isn't at all unreasonable to expect him to begin to develop some power.

I did say he put up solid numbers. But we're not talking about a Brian McCann/Joe Mauer type.

This is a very, very nice-looking young catcher.

You're overlooking that he's horrendous behind the plate.
   33. MM1f Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:07 AM (#2078232)
"Arizona's the only organization in the division that has a decent minor league system and a clue about roster-building. In fact, no organization except them and LA has either one!"

You mean except them, LA and Colorado....

COL got high-upside star power (Fowler, Stewart, Nelson) and polished depth (Smith, Gaetti, Koshansky, Macri, Ianetta) in bats and some electric arms (Morillo, Ubaldo Jimenez, Shane Lindsay-though injured, Chaz Roe).

FWIW, BA had them at 11 before the year in minor leage talent.

Plus they have a decent collection of young players at the big league level
   34. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:09 AM (#2078243)
But we're not talking about a Brian McCann/Joe Mauer type.

Okay, but he's still got better numbers than your typical 22-year-old catcher.

You're overlooking that he's horrendous behind the plate.

In your opinion. Other opinions differ. And however bad his defense may be, it's been good enough to get him promoted four times, reaching the majors at age 21. Lots of players at this age are still pretty ragged around the edges on defense; it isn't as though no 22-year-old catcher has ever developed quite a bit beyond that age, both offensively and defensively.

He might never make it, of course. But the positives on this kid far outweigh the negatives. I'd trade Hendrickson for him every time.
   35. MM1f Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2078249)
Oops, I left Tulowitzki out
   36. scareduck Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#2078280)
Yup, he's on the DL with a wrist injury.

He was on the DL, but he was activated and optioned to AAA Las Vegas.
   37. Dr Love Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#2078315)
In your opinion. Other opinions differ. And however bad his defense may be, it's been good enough to get him promoted four times, reaching the majors at age 21. Lots of players at this age are still pretty ragged around the edges on defense; it isn't as though no 22-year-old catcher has ever developed quite a bit beyond that age, both offensively and defensively.

0-16 this year, 9-33 last year. That's more than just an opinion about his defense. He's the main reason why Alomar was brought in, so clearly I'm not alone on that. And let's not forget part of his promotion to AAA was because he was DePo's pet project, and to the majors because he couldn't be worse than Phillips/Bako.

He might never make it, of course. But the positives on this kid far outweigh the negatives. I'd trade Hendrickson for him every time.

And as I said, I would have liked to seen a better pitcher than Hendrickson gotten for him. And I said he was a solid prospect--his hitting has been fine--all I'm saying is that I don't see jim being as good as some people make him out to be.
   38. Dr Love Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:30 AM (#2078332)
He was on the DL, but he was activated and optioned to AAA Las Vegas.

Yes he was, I forgot about that.
   39. Jim Wisinski Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#2078471)
Hendrickson's control isn't particularly good. He can generally throw it over the plate frequently but most of the time can't hit spots worth a damn and would give up more walks if his stuff wasn't so hittable; why take pitches when you can smack them?
   40. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#2078475)
0-16 this year, 9-33 last year. That's more than just an opinion about his defense.

Well, obviously 0-16 is pretty bad, albeit in a tiny sample. But we're supposed to be appalled by 9-33? That's 27%. The league average in 2005 was 29%. This is "horrendous"? Not to mention the fact that throwing out base stealers isn't the only aspect of catching.

And as I said, I would have liked to seen a better pitcher than Hendrickson gotten for him. And I said he was a solid prospect--his hitting has been fine--all I'm saying is that I don't see him being as good as some people make him out to be.

Fair enough. I guess I see the kid's glass more half-full than you do. He's twenty-freaking-two.
   41. Dr Love Posted: June 28, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2078579)
9-33? That's 27%

I erred on that line. He had 9 CS, 33 SB, which is 9-42, or 21%.
   42. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 28, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#2078681)
Smith would be the only one even close to qualified to write on this, but I doubt he deals with trades at all. More likely, this is the PR man, or -- even better for Dodgers fans -- the team historian. For the sake of the franchise, that had better not have been the GM's final reasons for pulling the trigger.

Why would the PR guy be unqualified to write the blog? The franchise has a god damn PR man in the GM position.
   43. Jon W Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:20 AM (#2078864)
Inside the Dodgers is mainly written by Josh Rawitch, the PR director. He's pretty open about providing information, but I think it's unreasonable to expect he would offer anything but a positive spin on the trade. If he did otherwise, it would be the last thing he ever did for the organization.
   44. akrasian Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:26 AM (#2078898)
And let's not forget part of his promotion to AAA was because he was DePo's pet project, and to the majors because he couldn't be worse than Phillips/Bako.

The Yankees promoted him to AAA, not the Dodgers.

Incidentally, he got off to a slow start in his AAA season with the Yankees, which makes his minor league numbers look less impressive. The reason he got off to the poor start was that he reported in poor shape. And why didn't he work out that offseason? His wife collapsed and nearly died, and he had months of trying to nurse her back to health while taking care of his stepchild - i.e., he wasn't lazy - just sometimes there are more important things than hitting the gym every day.

And even with his poor throwing last season (incidentally, he started off 1-10 before being effective after that) he was an above average catcher overall - the pitchers supposedly liked the way he handled them, and he definitely was above average offensively. Yes, Bako getting hurt and Phillips sucking was a factor in his being called up - but the plan from spring training was that he would be up at some point in the season. Yes, he needs more defensive polish - but then, he likely will add more power too as he matures and gets experience. He's not as good as Martin - but the Dodgers would have been better off keeping him, or at least using him as a piece of a trade for an actual good player in return.
   45. Cheer and boo and raise a hullabaloo Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:01 AM (#2079100)
How depressing. Toby Hall? Toby Hall? Sheesh.

Well, at least the Dodgers got a better pitcher, with an ERA+ of about 105 for his career, compared to only about 90 for Seo. Oh wait, no, Seo is the one with the good ERA+, and Hendrickson is the bad one. Oh well, at least Hendrickson is younger; no, wait, Seo is younger.

Well, at least Hendrickson has better stats in a small sample. And isn't Korean. [end sarcasm]
   46. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:35 AM (#2079110)
Allowing fewer line drives is not a skill.


Yes, it is.

There's a structural problem when standard statistical methods are used that makes it appear as though LD rate is not under the pitchers control (the same problem exists with BABIP). A pitcher with a high LD rate *has* to get better at it in order to keep pitching in the majors. When he does get better at it, statistically it looks like a regression to the mean.

When you look at pitchers that allow more LD than average as a group, they tend to allow more LD than average year in and year out. When you look at pitchers that allow fewer LD than average as a group, they tend to allow fewer LD than average year in and year out. That evidence suggests that LD rate (or more precisely, keeping balls in play from being hit hard) is in fact part of a pitcher's skill set.

-- MWE
   47. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:12 PM (#2079221)
That evidence suggests that LD rate (or more precisely, keeping balls in play from being hit hard) is in fact part of a pitcher's skill set.

-- MWE


and if so, it's a "skill" that Hendrickson has only displayed once in his career, teh first half of 2006. Among healthy pitchers Hendrickson has to be the most likely MLB pitvher to see his second half ERA climb by at least a run- he's really not pitching any better, for whatever reason he's not being hit as hard as usual- that won't last.
   48. AROM Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:27 PM (#2079230)
Someone mentioned Hendrickson's walk rate is actually up this year. Maybe that and his low line drive rating is related. He's trying to locate the ball better instead of laying it in there, and not giving in to hitters. When you've got Hendrickson's "fastball" that's necessary to survival.
   49. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:37 PM (#2079240)
Someone mentioned Hendrickson's walk rate is actually up this year. Maybe that and his low line drive rating is related. He's trying to locate the ball better instead of laying it in there, and not giving in to hitters.

I've seen pitchers do that (ie: Al Leiter at the end) and it doesn't work for very long
   50. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:42 PM (#2079244)
Alomar's only 1-14 this year, for whatever that's worth. Do any of the Dodgers' starters have a personal catcher?
   51. AROM Posted: June 28, 2006 at 02:55 PM (#2079263)
I've seen pitchers do that (ie: Al Leiter at the end) and it doesn't work for very long

I've seen pitchers do that too and have it work forever (Tom Glavine). I'm not saying I think Hendrickson has any chance to be as good as Glavine. He might be a decent #4/5 starter for a few years if some of his improvement is real.
   52. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#2079271)
He might be a decent #4/5 starter for a few years if some of his improvement is real.

There is no effing way he can consistently hold batters to a .250 BABIP- which he has to do to not suck.

We're not talking about a league average or slightly better than average guy who is top 3 in ERA because of a half season stretch of .250 BABIP, we're talking about a guy who has an ERA, barely, under 4.00 solely because his BABIP for half a season is .250

Let's say the improvement is real, he now has one of the ten best REAL abilities in MLB at preventing hits on balls in play, so his BABIP will regress to what, .275 instead of .300? At .275 (which is terrrfic) he would justr about make a passable innings muncher.

Glavine's a freak.
   53. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: June 28, 2006 at 03:44 PM (#2079289)
People keep ignoring that Navarro has no options beyond 2006. His value is dropping because of it. Apparently it's dropped to the level of Hendrickson. The only teams that will take Navarro are those that can audition him for the rest of 2006 and the whole of 2007. That's Tampa and KC. Hendrickson is better than anything the Royals have.
   54. AROM Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:02 PM (#2079301)
There is no effing way he can consistently hold batters to a .250 BABIP- which he has to do to not suck.

I won't dispute that he can't hold hitters to a .250 BABIP. But he's got some other things going for him, his strikeout rate is 5.2 per 9, up from 4.2 and 4.3 the previous 2 years. He may be closer to 6 K/G now that he gets to strike out pitchers.

He's also pretty good at keeping the ball on the ground - 10th among AL starters on the Hardball Times site. Dodger stadium is supposed to be pretty good for groundball pitchers.
   55. Mister High Standards Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#2079312)

I wonder how the LA hacks like Plaschke will be able to blame this on DePo after this bomb.


They won't need to. Depo's bombs stand on their own merit.
   56. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#2079316)
They won't need to. Depo's bombs stand on their own merit.

You know, I miss BL, he'd at least mention one or two moves in partiular and say something about why they were bombs
   57. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:16 PM (#2079319)
People keep ignoring that Navarro has no options beyond 2006. His value is dropping because of it.

I don't believe anyone has ignored it. Yes, it impacts his value, but I don't see how it impacts it all that much: this is a player who has already completed a successful AAA apprenticeship, and has performed well in his (admittedly limited) major league tenure. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to need to farm him out, thus the lack of options shouldn't be a huge deal, either for the Dodgers, the DRays, or anyone else interested in acquiring him.

The Dodgers made what looks to be a really bad deal in trading him now, in this package, for this return. This assessment includes the options issue.
   58. 1k5v3L Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2079320)
So, the Dodgers traded Shawn Green and $10m for Toby Hall. Well done, sirs, well done. Here is a bet the Dbacks will get someone much better than Toby Hall when they trade Green.

And word on the street is that the Dodgers offered a gaggle of prospects to the Marlins for Dontrelle Willis, but the Marlins said "Go fish". Colletti's tenure has been underwhelming.
   59. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#2079330)
The Dodgers made what looks to be a really bad deal in trading him now, in this package, for this return.

Dodger fan sites are almost ecstatic over this trade- but then 80% of that is, "Oh thank god we got rid of Seo", 10% is "gee Hendrickson's ERA is decent", 5% is "Navarro was expendable, he wasbn't doing anything for us NOW" and 5% is "Navarro's defense is terrible and Hall's an experienced Vet, he'll make a good backup".


Regional Bias alert:

You know, looking at Dodger Fan sites makes me appreciate how many knowlegable fans there are out where I live (oh we get ignorant fanboys too...), I mean sheesh- on the Dodger sites SOME (not alot, but some) have pointed out Navarro's age and mentioned that MLB service time aside he's functionally a very good prospect, but almost no one points out that pre 2006, Hendrickson was pretty awful. It's like a reflex, "I like it, Hendrickon's better than Seo and Navarro was expendable". Hendrickson has never ever pitched as well as Seo did last year.
   60. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#2079333)
Colletti's tenure has been underwhelming.

Nomar and Ethier are making him look pretty good.

He hasn't ransacked the farm (yet)

this particular move looks boneheaded, but he doesn't appear ion teh whoel to be an actively destructive GM
   61. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#2079335)
I agree, it's too soon to make a judgment on Colletti.
   62. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2079339)
You know, I miss BL, he'd at least mention one or two moves in partiular and say something about why they were bombs

Well, then I'll mention a few.

1. Eric Gagne, 2 years, $19m, 15.1 IP. Perhaps it was a good idea at the time (although I strongly disagree) but it's obviously turned into a disaster.

2. J.D. Drew, 5 years, $55m. He's hit well when he's played, but he has (shockingly!) been unable to stay healthy. In addition, he was signed to play CF. Nope.

3. Odalis Perez, 3 years, $24m. Enough said.

4. Jeff Kent vs Milton Bradley

5. The Jim Tracy situation.
   63. Dan Szymborski Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2079343)
They won't need to. Depo's bombs stand on their own merit.

Tell us again how the Penny trade stunk, Matt and how the Dodgers would love to undo the trade and give up their ace, who's 8-2 with a 3.06 ERA in order to get back the reliever with an ERA near 7 and make serious downgrades at right field and catcher. Choi's value turned out to be very little and the Dodgers still came out way ahead.
   64. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:48 PM (#2079353)
Well, then I'll mention a few.

Fair enough, but everything I've read (even reading betwen the lines of LA articles meant to back Tracy makes me believe that situation was 80%+ Tracy)

he also made good moves too-
not resigning Finely, not resigning Beltre, Lowe's been reasonably effective (still overpaid), Dan mentioned Penny, Kent was good in 2005, his tenure certai9ly wasn't teh unmitigated disaster that his critics claim it was.

perhaps most importantly he didn't vandalize the organization- by that I mean he didn't randomly throw useful palyers/prospects away fro no return- he left his successor with a full supply of chips.
   65. bob gee Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:51 PM (#2079356)
kazmir for zambrano
navarro for hall.

and a ton of young top prospects. nice basis.

btw, saw evan longoria last night. he *crushed* a homer - 450 feet that was a solid rising line drive? way impressive.
   66. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 04:59 PM (#2079362)
The fair assessment of DePodesta's tenure is that he made some moves that turned out well, and others that didn't, but that overall he was there for too short a time to be able to call it as signficantly positive or negative. It is true that he did a good job of keeping the youth cupboard full.
   67. akrasian Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2079369)
TwoAlous

Gagne would have gotten $9-$10 million in arbitration that offseason anyway. As was discussed in another thread, Gagne was so popular with the fanbase that he wasn't going to be traded that year at least. The extension was risky for the second year, of course, but nowhere near as costly as you make it sound

Drew has been effective when healthy. He did get hit by that pitch last season - not really predictable - but whatever. He was overpriced - but at least he's a bargain compared to what most gms would have done, i.e. resign Beltre - again, enormous pressure was placed on him to get Beltre, and instead he chose the cheaper, more effective player.

Odalis was a bad signing - however, while he was inconsistent and a bit of a headcase, he was also extremely effective at times, and got around what other non-ace pitchers with upside were getting that offseason.

Jeff Kent vs Bradley? I'm not sure what you mean. Kent has been very productive for the Dodgers. The Bradley acquisition was a big factor in the Dodgers winning the division in 2004. When Bradley blew up at Kent, after a series of problems, he had to go, of course. But it's not clear why you're pointing that out as horrible.

Jim Tracy was imposed on DePodesta. If the Dodgers hadn't won the division in 2004, DePo would have replaced him, but it's pretty difficult to justify replacing a manager you inherit, if the team wins the division for the first time in a long while. So again, it's not clear why that's a horrible DePodesta move.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a Giant fan with an irrational hatred of all things Dodger.
   68. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:06 PM (#2079372)
Fair enough, but everything I've read (even reading betwen the lines of LA articles meant to back Tracy makes me believe that situation was 80%+ Tracy)

I agree that the situation seems to be mostly caused by Tracy, but that's an irrelevance - DePo was Tracy's boss. It doesn't matter who caused it, it's was on DePo to resolve it - if necessary by firing Tracy and bringing in someone else. It was DePo's managerial responsibility to ensure the smooth running of the ballcub, and their inability to work together caused huge damage.

[DePo's] tenure certainly wasn't the unmitigated disaster that his critics claim it was.

Agreed, but nor was it anything like a success. It seems he promised instant success on a lower payroll, which was obviously music to McCourt's ears. And he delivered mediocrity, so he got fired. But to listen to many here, DePo was a voice crying out in the wilderness, unfairly silenced by Plashke, Mariotti and McCourt as, respectively, Herodias, Salome and Herod Antipas.
   69. chris p Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#2079374)
the fact that depo failed in LA does not depend on whether his trades and free agent signings were good or bad (they were a mixed bag, it's pretty easy to see). he could not get along with the coaching staff and he didn't get along with the ownership. a successful GM has to do both, or he won't last long anywhere. anyway, dissecting each of his transactions doesn't prove the case one way or another.
   70. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:17 PM (#2079390)
he could not get along with the coaching staff and he didn't get along with the ownership. a successful GM has to do both, or he won't last long anywhere. anyway, dissecting each of his transactions doesn't prove the case one way or another.

Player transactions is a huge portion of the GM's job, so it must be a major consideration. That said, it's certainly true that it isn't the whole job, and getting along with others (including the media) is a very important part too. It's fair to give DePo a sharp ding for that -- yet that said, relationships are always a two-way street. Tracy and Murdoch deserve a share of that blame, as well.

The bottom line is that he was there for 2 years, which is such a short tenure as to make it very difficult to comprehensively conclude much of substance about it. The GM role is fundamentally a strategic function, not a tactical one, and 2 years isn't long enough for any strategy to come close to playing out.
   71. Rudy Meoli Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#2079392)
I think the trade is a good one for both teams The Dodgers get a better back up catcher in Hall than they currently have with Alomar. It frees them from having a major league ready player in AAA and they get a lefthander changing leagues in mid seasoon which in the past has proven to be an advantage to the pitcher. Seo had a great season last year but that may have had a lot to do with Rick Peterson. I have watched Hendrickson pitch quite a bit, he seems to have good control on pitches that he really needs. Navarro may have been a Yank hype prospect, but after the emergence of Cano, Cabrera maybe the Yanks farm system is not as bad as has been reported for the last few years.
   72. Rudy Meoli Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:19 PM (#2079394)
I think the trade is a good one for both teams The Dodgers get a better back up catcher in Hall than they currently have with Alomar. It frees them from having a major league ready player in AAA and they get a lefthander changing leagues in mid seasoon which in the past has proven to be an advantage to the pitcher. Seo had a great season last year but that may have had a lot to do with Rick Peterson. I have watched Hendrickson pitch quite a bit, he seems to have good control on pitches that he really needs. Navarro may have been a Yank hype prospect, but after the emergence of Cano, Cabrera maybe the Yanks farm system is not as bad as has been reported for the last few years.
   73. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2079398)
Tracy and Murdoch deserve a share of that blame, as well.

D'oh! Tracy and McCourt, of course.
   74. chris p Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:21 PM (#2079399)
The bottom line is that he was there for 2 years, which is such a short tenure as to make it very difficult to comprehensively conclude much of substance about it. The GM role is fundamentally a strategic function, not a tactical one, and 2 years isn't long enough for any strategy to come close to playing out.

give me a break. the fact that he only lasted 2 years reflects poorly on him.
   75. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#2079411)
the fact that he only lasted 2 years reflects poorly on him.

Well, sure. But how big of an issue should we make of it? The question is, how well did he do? And 2 years would be too short of a window for the clone of Branch Rickey, with some George Weiss thrown in for good measure, to accomplish much of anything.

It may be that McCourt's decision to fire him was wise, but it may also be that McCourt's decision to fire him was rash. In either case, it cut DePodesta's tenure so short that it makes it very difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about how well or poorly things would likely have worked out over a reasonable time frame, say 5 to 7 years.
   76. chris p Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:29 PM (#2079412)
But how big of an issue should we make of it?

it means that his first run as a gm was a failure. he may earn another shot ... then we can evaluate him some more, right? but you can't spin his first go 'round as anything but a failure.
   77. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#2079425)
Gagne would have gotten $9-$10 million in arbitration that offseason anyway. As was discussed in another thread, Gagne was so popular with the fanbase that he wasn't going to be traded that year at least. The extension was risky for the second year, of course, but nowhere near as costly as you make it sound

DePo paid Gagne $19m. So far he has pitched 15.1 IP, in one and a half seasons. God only knows when (if?) he will pitch again. How much more costly do you want it to be? That's more than $1m per IP.

Drew has been effective when healthy. He did get hit by that pitch last season - not really predictable - but whatever. He was overpriced - but at least he's a bargain compared to what most gms would have done, i.e. resign Beltre - again, enormous pressure was placed on him to get Beltre, and instead he chose the cheaper, more effective player.

Who says most GMs would have resigned Beltre? And who says if he didn't sign Beltre, he had to sign Drew? Not signing Beltre was a good move. Signing Drew was not.

Odalis was a bad signing - however, while he was inconsistent and a bit of a headcase, he was also extremely effective at times, and got around what other non-ace pitchers with upside were getting that offseason.

Everyone's effective at times. The question is whether those times are frequent enough. You are aware that Drew and Perez together got as much as Pedro?

Jeff Kent vs Bradley? I'm not sure what you mean.


I mean that part of the GM's responsibility is to bring in players who can work together, or at least not actively fight with each other. Some people may overrate "chemistry," but an unhappy working environment is not a productive one. And of course the value available for Bradley was massively diminished because everyone knew Bradley was gone.

Jim Tracy was imposed on DePodesta. If the Dodgers hadn't won the division in 2004, DePo would have replaced him, but it's pretty difficult to justify replacing a manager you inherit, if the team wins the division for the first time in a long while. So again, it's not clear why that's a horrible DePodesta move.

If my subordinate refuses to work with me properly, I have to change their behavior or replace them. If I just do nothing and allow damage to accrue to the operation, then it reflects just as badly on me as the subordinate.

Besides, all throughout your post, you seem to have these absurd standards by which you judge DePodesta. Why does he need excuses to "justify" replacing Tracy? If he thinks it's the best move, make it, and take the flak/credit. What does it matter if some idiot GM would have given Beltre 10/$300m? If "Moneyball" is about anything, it's about trying to find undervalued assets, not avoiding the stupidest move but then making the second stupidest. Gagne could have fetched a king's ransom in trade in the 2004/5 off-season, that sabermetric CW would tell you was worth more, even if you give Gagne a couple of brownie points for being a fan favorite.

I don't care for the Dodgers, but I don't think I'm biased on DePo. I'm quite willing to give credit where it's due. Kent was a good signing. The Penny trade was a good one. Lowe has worked out much better than I thought he would. He got unlucky with Izturis. As Steve rightly says, DePo wasn't there long enough to properly evaluate him. But ultimately, the Dodgers are in the biggest market in their division, and have the biggest payroll. They ought to do better than 164-160.
   78. Steve Treder Posted: June 28, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#2079426)
but you can't spin his first go 'round as anything but a failure.

No one should "spin" it any way at all. We should assess it as objectively as we can. Of course getting your ass fired after two years is itself a failure, but noting that obvious fact hardly constitutes an assessment of how well/poorly he was doing up to that point: the firing might well have been a stupid mistake by McCourt, that it's unfair to hang on DePodesta.

Simply dismissing DePodesta's LA tenure as a "failure" is just as uncalled for as calling him some kind of a martyred genius. There isn't enough evidence to make either case.
   79. akrasian Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:06 PM (#2079478)
DePo paid Gagne $19m. So far he has pitched 15.1 IP, in one and a half seasons. God only knows when (if?) he will pitch again. How much more costly do you want it to be? That's more than $1m per IP.


Well, the point was that he would have been paid $9-10 million for 2005 if DePodesta hadn't signed him to a multiple year contract. And since Gagne was a phenomenon and coming off of a stretch of being the most effective closer ever, the Dodgers would not have traded him at that time - DePodesta wouldn't have been allowed to do that for pr reasons. So pointing to the $19 million is disingenuous, at the very least. And even then, the Dodgers would have been faced with either non-tendering Gagne or paying him millions for the 2006 season.



Everyone's effective at times. The question is whether those times are frequent enough.

Yes, and prior to the signing Odalis was effective as much or more than other pitchers who got similar contracts in that offseason. It was the going rate at the time. Saying it was a horrible move to sign a fairly young pitcher to a market rate contract is wrong.

Why does he need excuses to "justify" replacing Tracy?

Because, like it or not, a large part of a GMs job is political. The Dodgers were having a bad season, thanks substantially (not totally) to a massive number of injuries. We've seen how McCourt handles things like that.

Ignoring the pr and political aspects of the job is something that DePo has been blasted on - but his handling of Tracy was a case of his not ignoring it.

I would have fired Tracy personally - but there would have been other, negative consequences to that that couldn't be ignored either.
   80. chris p Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:07 PM (#2079480)
Simply dismissing DePodesta's LA tenure as a "failure"

i don't think i did that.
   81. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2079511)
People keep ignoring that Navarro has no options beyond 2006. His value is dropping because of it. Apparently it's dropped to the level of Hendrickson.

Do teams have to burn an option year when rosters expand? It looks like he was called up when the rosters expanded in '04. His MLB debut was in September of '04.
   82. S. Ransom Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:24 PM (#2079517)
Fantastic analysis of the trade from Tampa Bay's perspective over at DRays Bay. They call it a slam-dunk win for the Rays.

In ten starts and nine bullpen appearances, Seo went 2-4 with a 5.78 ERA for Los Angeles. However let's look at his peripherals. Seo had a 6.59 K/9. Better than Hendrickson. A 3.36 BB/9. Better than Hendrickson. A 1.96 K/BB. Better than Hendrickson. His peripherals just don't add up to the ERA.


They're also reporting that the Rays will get a PTBNL and that the Rays are sending over $1 million. The Rays actually sending money. Imagine that.
   83. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#2079523)
from Tampa Bay's perspective over at DRays Bay.

The DRays have fans????

Learn something new every day
   84. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:34 PM (#2079526)
i don't think i did that.

Four posts and 38 minutes earlier:

it means that his first run as a gm was a failure.
   85. John Lowenstein Apathy Club (CB) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#2079527)
Simply dismissing DePodesta's LA tenure as a "failure" is just as uncalled for as calling him some kind of a martyred genius.

I don't know if I agree... saying DePo's term in LA was a failure is not the same as calling DePodesta himself a failure. If I say "DePo's a martyred genius" the proper response, as you point out, is "we don't know that because there isn't enough evidence". If I say "DePo's a useless failure" the proper response is the same.

If I say "DePo's term as Dodger GM was a failure" I think we only need to look at the evidence; the term is complete and will be able to be judged on its merits.

DePodesta was ostensibly hired to take a very wealthy, expensive team that had underachieved, and push them over the top to being a title contender. He got off to a very promising start in his first season - he cut payroll, attendance increased, and the Dodgers made the postseason for the first time in eight seasons. This is usually forgotten in assessing DePodesta's job... he looked very much on the ball at first. Less cost, more revenues, better results, more promise for the future - the perfect golden quadrivium of a GM's job.

Then in 2005 he watched as the team completely imploded. DePodesta continued to cut payroll (causing many of us to wonder what the Dodgers really had in mind when they brought him on board) the team had some injury problems and everything went south.

If you look at whether DePodesta's tenure accomplished its stated goals, I think you'd have to say no, because the Dodgers did not in fact build a title contender and were further (considerably so) from that goal when DePodesta left than when he arrived. In that sense, it was a failure.

However, the Dodgers had increased their ticket sales by about half a million in 2005 over 2003, with $20 million less in payroll expenditure. That's a significant boost to club finances. We will never know what the real motivation was to hiring DePodesta, who arrived from an organization famous for eking results out in stony ground but not for pushing teams over the top to a title. If DePodesta was in fact hired to put the Dodgers' finances further into the black, I think that his time was probably a success. We won't really know that until everyone writes their memoirs, of course - and even then not for sure. For now, all we have to go on was the stated goal, winning, which is the goal closest to our hearts as fans anyway. On that note, DePodesta's tenure in Los Angeles was a failure in both the short term reality and long term prospect.
   86. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:36 PM (#2079531)
Do teams have to burn an option year when rosters expand?

The options pertain to the 40-man roster, not the expanded MLB roster. If you're on the 40-man and in the minors, you burned an option, even if you never got called up in September.
   87. More Indecisive than Lonnie Smith on 2nd... Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:36 PM (#2079532)
a couple of points on Hendrickson and line drive rate:

supposedly, based on the FSN broadcast this weekend in Atlanta, the announcers were saying that Hendrickson had reworked his arm slot in order to throw more over the top. He would then be using his height better and induce naturally changing plane to his pitches. He supposedly (again, this is all anecdotal from announcers) started on this middle to late part of last season.

Not sure if that means anything, but if it's anywhere near as accurate as the reports of Alex Rios overhauling his swing to remove the hitches in the offseason (and it DOES look more fluid), then perhaps there is some potential growth occuring on a late-bloomer.


On another note, Navarro's career minor OPS entering 2006 was only ~750. I'm not quite sure that's too impressive, even with the early age:level promotion pattern. His XBH rate is also quite low, so expecting someone who doesn't hit a lot of doubles to "develop power" as some posters claim might be far-fetched.


All that said (on both Hendrickson and Navarro) I think Coletti's a dolt for not getting more pitcher for a young catcher.
   88. John Lowenstein Apathy Club (CB) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#2079533)
Do teams have to burn an option year when rosters expand? It looks like he was called up when the rosters expanded in '04. His MLB debut was in September of '04.

If he was only added to the 40 man roster in September of 2004 and was in the majors the whole time, that would not be an option year. However, if he was on the 40-man roster in the first part of 2004 (I believe he would have been) and spent the year in the minors on optional assignment, then yes, it's an option year.
   89. John Lowenstein Apathy Club (CB) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#2079542)
Hendrickson had reworked his arm slot in order to throw more over the top. He would then be using his height better and induce naturally changing plane to his pitches.

Earlier in his career, the Jays had (IIRC) been working with Hendrickson on coming from a more lateral arm slot in order to generate a "crossfire" effect. If the Rays decided to try something new, it wouldn't be the first time that an about-face of this kind improved a pitcher's natural movement.
   90. chris p Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#2079546)
Four posts and 38 minutes earlier:

#### you, larry. one sentance later: "he may earn another shot ... then we can evaluate him some more, right?"
   91. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:48 PM (#2079555)
If he was only added to the 40 man roster in September of 2004 and was in the majors the whole time, that would not be an option year. However, if he was on the 40-man roster in the first part of 2004 (I believe he would have been) and spent the year in the minors on optional assignment, then yes, it's an option year.

Thanks for the info. It appears that he was on the 40 man roster in '04. Its hard to find the info though.
   92. DCA Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2079565)

#### you, larry. one sentance later: "he may earn another shot ... then we can evaluate him some more, right?"


sorry crisp p, I read your comment just like Larry and Steve. That next sentence doesn't act as a qualifier or limiter of the first. To me it actually strengthens the point ... "unless he gets another shot, he's been nothing but a failure."

You may not have thought that's what you were saying, but it's definitely what you actually said.
   93. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 28, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2079570)
"Hendrickson is better than anything the Royals have."

Mmm, ditch water!
   94. chris p Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#2079578)
You may not have thought that's what you were saying, but it's definitely what you actually said.

well larry has a particularly obnoxious way of putting it. and i did try to clear up that i was not trying to say depo was a complete failure at life with #80.
   95. Boots Day Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2079601)
You have to remember that up until the end of the 2004 season, Jim Tracy was considered -- both here on BTF and elsewhere -- one of the brightest and best young managers in the game. I don't know the extent of his disagreements with DePodesta, but I don't think it's a bad thing to make allowances for someone with as good a resume as Tracy's was.
   96. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#2079608)
Hendrickson's no gem, but between no longer having to pitch against the Yankees, Red Sox and Jays over and over and getting to move to the NL West, he should be able to more than hold his own. This could end up looking brilliant. (emphasis on "looking")
   97. dlf Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2079630)
If I say "DePo's term as Dodger GM was a failure" I think we only need to look at the evidence; the term is complete and will be able to be judged on its merits.


The term is complete, but the results are incomplete. I believe that you can measure a trade or free agent signing in one of two ways: 1. with what is known or should have been known at the time and 2. with the actual results. We can always learn more about what the insiders in the Dodgers or other teams' offices knew, but in general, that measurement of DePo is complete. But the long term consequences, for good or ill, of his drafts, trades, & signings probably won't be substantially, let alone fully, known for several years.
   98. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:22 PM (#2079643)
It appears that he was on the 40 man roster in '04. Its hard to find the info though.

Yes it is. And I'm not 100% sure either. But 2004 would have been his 4th professional season, which is usually time to either put him on the 40-man or expose him to the Rule V draft. The question is whether he was on the 40-man before his callup. The Yankees other AAA catcher was Sal Fasano who seemed to be a hole-filler they had no intention of calling up even in case of injury. So it seems likely Navarro was on the 40-man before his call-up.

For clarity, I assume that Navarro's option years are done after 2006. If not, then this is a pretty bad trade on the Dodgers' part. But if this is his last option year, then it's a LOT more understandable as his value TO THE DODGERS is a lot lower.
   99. DCW3 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2079665)
From 2003 to 2005, Hendrickson had an RSAA of -52.6. That's the worst of any pitcher in the majors over that span. Worse than Lima or Milton or Fossum, or anybody else you can name.
   100. JPWF13 Posted: June 28, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#2079705)
From 2003 to 2005, Hendrickson had an RSAA of -52.6. That's the worst of any pitcher in the majors over that span.

What's more his DIPS and FIP #s are the same or slightly worse-

he's giving up less hits, and the guys who count line drives say he's giving up less of them- that's pretty much it.
Moreover, his decrease in BABIP which is driving his lower ERA is (even if you do not believe in DIPS) unsustainable, because no starter can maintain a BABIP of .250 (50+ points lower than league average)

Ok- he's changed his arm angle, and???? His k/bb got a little worse and he gives up homers at the same rate. Heilman put up ERAs of 6.75 and 5.46, changed his arm angle, and his velocity went up, his k/bb improved - ignoring era looking at teh whoel stateline it;'s obvious he's pitched better since the switch.

Right now Hendrickson has better results, but looking at the whole stat line, well he looks pretty much like the same crappy pitcher he always was. Maybe it's a repeat of Aaron Small 2005, same crappy pitcher, same bad peripherals- but or one whole year it actually works- I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't trade anything of value for it.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7896 seconds
47 querie(s) executed