So the big news of the day is that the Tigers have traded top prospects Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin along with 4 lesser prospects for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. How fortunate for the Tigers that they had Miller and Maybin around to make the trade, huh?
The Tigers bought their fortune, more or less. Andrew Miller was drafted 6th overall in the 2006 draft. He got a signing bonus of 3.85 million to go with another 3 million plus in guaranteed money. The players drafted directly ahead and behind him got signing bonuses of 2 million ( Brandon Morrow ) and 2.3 million ( Clayton Kershaw ). By paying an extra 1.5 million or so the Tigers were able to lock up a premier talent. Cameron Maybin was drafted 10th overall in 2005, and after a lengthy holdout he signed for slightly above "slot money" with a signing bonus of 2.65 million dollars. In comparison, Wade Townsend, drafted eighth in 2005, got a signing bonus of 1.5 million. ( The ninth pick that year, Pelfry, was also signed above slot value. ) By paying an extra 1 million the Tigers locked up Maybin. By a very simple analysis, this extra 2.5 million spent in 2005 and 2006 has paid off with Miguel Cabrera in 2008.
Now, the Tigers are losing 4 pitching prospects in this deal. That hurts their overall pitching depth, no question. But they still have Rick Porcello, drafted 27th overall last year and given a signing bonus of 3.85 million to sign, well over slot money that far down in the first round. By paying over slot for him, they put themselves in a position to trade away four pitching prospects and still have some depth.
The Tigers may well have been better off if they had drafted Kershaw instead of Miller in 2006, of course. He would have been cheaper and may have even have been more slightly more valued by the Marlins thatn Miller. But you'll come out ahead over the long haul by drafting premium talent that drops because of signability concerns and then paying over slot to get that talent on board. If the Tigers had just taken players at each spot in the draft that they knew they could sign at the MLB approved amount for that slot, they might not have had enough young talent to get Cabrera.
I don't know which team wins this trade. I'm bad at figuring out that sort of thing. But viewed one way the Tigers basically got Cabrera for an outlay of 6.2 million dollars back in 2005 and 2006. It's not as if losing either Maybin or Miller creates any true holes in the 2008 Tigers. ( Maybe losing them creates holes in the 2010 Tigers, though. ) Anyway, about 6 million for Cabrera is a steal for the Tigers, isn't it?
I wish the Dodgers were willing to consistently go over slot in the way the Tigers are. Nothing beats smart drafting, of course. You need to give the bonuses to the right players. But I wonder, who might Kyle Blair have been traded for down the road? What might an investment of 1 million in 2007 have garnered the Dodgers in future years?
04 December 2007
27 November 2007
Nothing Is Happening
Nothing is happening with the Dodgers, unless you count ridiculous rumors, photo opportunities and vaguely reassuring interviews by top officials. The rumors have beaten me down, even though I try not to pay them any attention. I know they're garbage, and yet still the thought that there are people out there who think trading Kershaw, Kemp, LaRoche and Loney for Miguel Cabrera is something the Dodgers would do is very unsettling. These rumors are the product of having lots of good young players and prospects and having an iffy GM who seems to value veteran players too much. It's good and bad, together, creating hysteria.
So, I haven't had anything relevent to say about the team. This is because nothing is happening. And that's good, because nothing should happen with this team. I don't want any substantive issues to write about in this blog. I don't want there to be any trades or signings to talk about, because almost anything the Dodgers could do would be bad, a step backwards.
They broke the ground on the new spring training site in Arizona. I guess that was something happening. They had a picture of Vin Scully with a shovel. That was pretty goofy. I don't care about Spring Training, though. Should Spring Training be capitalized, perhaps as a way of making it seem more important than it really is? I don't care where the Dodgers play their springtime pretend games, though I am mildly unsettled at the thought of them sharing a field with another team. The best part of spring training is that it means the real games are coming up really soon.
The real games are so far off now, though. Maybe Dodgerama should have an offseason, just like the team it kind of covers. It has been several weeks since I posted anything. But blogs aren't supposed to have offseasons.
So, I haven't had anything relevent to say about the team. This is because nothing is happening. And that's good, because nothing should happen with this team. I don't want any substantive issues to write about in this blog. I don't want there to be any trades or signings to talk about, because almost anything the Dodgers could do would be bad, a step backwards.
They broke the ground on the new spring training site in Arizona. I guess that was something happening. They had a picture of Vin Scully with a shovel. That was pretty goofy. I don't care about Spring Training, though. Should Spring Training be capitalized, perhaps as a way of making it seem more important than it really is? I don't care where the Dodgers play their springtime pretend games, though I am mildly unsettled at the thought of them sharing a field with another team. The best part of spring training is that it means the real games are coming up really soon.
The real games are so far off now, though. Maybe Dodgerama should have an offseason, just like the team it kind of covers. It has been several weeks since I posted anything. But blogs aren't supposed to have offseasons.
07 November 2007
The Face of the Dodgers
Joe Torre is the new face of the Dodgers. That's the biggest change his hiring brings. From the perspective of all the national writers he's now the most important part of the team, even as some of them may say that he can't do it all himself, that the Dodgers are far from a sure thing next year. The Dodger season of 2008 will be about Joe Torre's quest for redemption, even if he denies it. Even though it's the players who matter, not the manager. I think most of the baseball writers out there know this, but they can't help themselves. The Joe Torre redemption quest makes a great story, and it involves the Yankees. It's always going to be one of the angles whenever anyone non-local talks about the Dodgers. The truth is Joe Torre is now the most famous current Dodger. Number two is Nomar. I guess Vinny is number three.
The only way Torre doesn't remain the most famous current Dodger is if the team signs A-HRod or if one of the young players becomes a mega-star next year. Or maybe if they traded for someone like Johan Santana. I think fame is a good quality to look for in your manager. It's not as if there's much else separating all of them. Having a famous manager is fun for the fans. I don't know if it's worth 5 million a year, but it's worth something. It gives an irrational sense of hope. In the backs of our minds we all know that famous people always win. Things go their way. Even though we know baseball doesn't work this way, it's still a shock to think Joe Torre's ballclub could lose. He's Joe Torre! It would be like OJ going to jail.
The only way Torre doesn't remain the most famous current Dodger is if the team signs A-HRod or if one of the young players becomes a mega-star next year. Or maybe if they traded for someone like Johan Santana. I think fame is a good quality to look for in your manager. It's not as if there's much else separating all of them. Having a famous manager is fun for the fans. I don't know if it's worth 5 million a year, but it's worth something. It gives an irrational sense of hope. In the backs of our minds we all know that famous people always win. Things go their way. Even though we know baseball doesn't work this way, it's still a shock to think Joe Torre's ballclub could lose. He's Joe Torre! It would be like OJ going to jail.
29 October 2007
What Happened? What the Hell Happened?
by Joshua Worley
There they were, the Rockies and their fans, winners of 21 out of 22, miracle contestants in the World Series --- and then it was gone, swept away by the Red Sox.
There we were, Dodger fans, in May of 1998, with the greatest hitting catcher ever, a sure-fire future Dodger Hall-of-famer --- and then it was gone, traded away to the Marlins.
There we were, in 2005, 12-2 to start the year, winners of games by blowout and comeback, by fortune and talent, riding high with a great young GM at the helm --- and then it was gone, doomed by injury, arrogance, and panic.
There we were, this year, 13-5 to begin April, looking like the best team in the National League --- and then it was gone, doomed by injury and stupidity.
There they were, the Yankees and their fans, finally in love with the greatest player in the game, and then it was gone, terminated by email.
Baseball fans know all too well the horrible feeling that comes when the bottom falls out. Everything is going fine, and suddenly nothing is fine. The season is in shambles. Future seasons are in shambles, perhaps. You're helpless, bewildered, angry. What the hell happened?
The Mets, and the Brewers. The Padres. I think some of their fans are still wondering what happened. And now the Rockies. Everything was going so well. Unimaginably well, historically well. They were the new team clutch. And then they weren't. Why did the Rockies magic melt? What happened to that team of destiny?
There is no answer. There are grasping explanations, there are urgent reasons why the disaster occured, but there is no honest answer. The 8-day layoff hurt them. The Red Sox were a far superior team. But inferior teams have won before, and teams with long layoffs have won before. There is no true answer, unless one is content to just make up new rules for why teams win every year.
There is a necessary humility in knowing you don't have the answer. It's a humility many sportswriters lack. This is why our team lost, and this is what has to be done to fix it. Usually fixing it involves firing someone. Sometimes it's making a trade or signing a player.
I think the Dodgers should make a run at Alex Rodriguez. He's such a polarizing figure --- already Peter Gammons, Buster Olney, and Jemele Hill have all ripped him at espn.com. But if he hits, and he will, I don't care. I don't care about the whole question of clutch. He's worth going after. But he's not the answer. No one player is ever the answer. The trap door can open on any team.
There are, sometimes, lessons to be learned from failure. Weaknesses shown, a path to improvement indicated. But there are no definitive answers. During many of the recent offseasons the Yankees thought they had found their answer. They were always just one big signing away. There is no foolproof way to win as much as you'd like, when you'd like. There is always the possibility for the "what the hell happened" moment to come again. A player leaves unexpectedly, or the team just goes into the tank out of nowhere. There are just no guarantees. So much in baseball just doesn't make sense. Even when there are reasons they may not quite add up to what happened. There are good reasons why the Red Sox won the World Series --- but these reasons shouldn't have added up to a sweep, not over a team that had been playing as well as the Rockies.
I hope 2007 Rockies are remembered well. But in the short term I fear it's a huge mark against them that they didn't win the World Series. Becoming worthy of remembrance seems more and more like an all or nothing sort of thing in modern times. Maybe the perspective of time is needed. Does anyone even care anymore that the 1951 Giants didn't win the World Series? It's irrelevant to the legend of that team. Heck, the '51 Giants are far more famous than the '51 Yankees, who won the World Series. Maybe the same will happen with the Rockies. I have too much respect for what they did down the stretch, including those awful 7 losses they handed the Dodgers, to think of them as failures.
I wonder if Grady Little is wondering what the hell happened right now. The year got really bumpy toward the end, but he seemed comfortably on track to manage the team next year. There were no reactionary sportswriters calling for his head, and management said he would be back. He had a contract.
And now? Who knows? Someone out there knows, I guess. I'm not sure who, though. All these rumors out there, about Girardi, and now Torre --- it's hard to ignore. No one with the Dodgers will come out and say Grady will be back next year. These are bad omens. I'm guessing he feels like a trap door below his feet has opened up, at the least. I don't think it's right. I've had problems with some of Grady's decisions, but this whole round of drawn-out speculation, fueled by the Dodgers' unwillingness to just end it with a definitive statement ( one way or the other ) isn't fair to Grady. Whether he's back next year or not, this past week has been a shame. Part of that falls to Buster Olney and his rumor-mongering, and part of it falls to the Dodgers.
I just hope the Dodgers aren't falling into the Yankee trap of thinking after each failure that they have the answer. Not only does arrogance not breed winning, but it makes it unpleasant to root for a team. I sure hope Colletti and McCourt are proceeding with all due humility. But this thing with Little and Torre bothers me. 2005 was DePodesta's fault. That ended up being the answer for that year. Will 2007 go down as Grady's fault, perhaps for playing those spoiled kids too much?
I don't know. I just wish the Dodgers were still a classy organization. I'm looking at what's happened with the team the last ten years, and sometimes I just wonder what the hell happened.
There they were, the Rockies and their fans, winners of 21 out of 22, miracle contestants in the World Series --- and then it was gone, swept away by the Red Sox.
There we were, Dodger fans, in May of 1998, with the greatest hitting catcher ever, a sure-fire future Dodger Hall-of-famer --- and then it was gone, traded away to the Marlins.
There we were, in 2005, 12-2 to start the year, winners of games by blowout and comeback, by fortune and talent, riding high with a great young GM at the helm --- and then it was gone, doomed by injury, arrogance, and panic.
There we were, this year, 13-5 to begin April, looking like the best team in the National League --- and then it was gone, doomed by injury and stupidity.
There they were, the Yankees and their fans, finally in love with the greatest player in the game, and then it was gone, terminated by email.
Baseball fans know all too well the horrible feeling that comes when the bottom falls out. Everything is going fine, and suddenly nothing is fine. The season is in shambles. Future seasons are in shambles, perhaps. You're helpless, bewildered, angry. What the hell happened?
The Mets, and the Brewers. The Padres. I think some of their fans are still wondering what happened. And now the Rockies. Everything was going so well. Unimaginably well, historically well. They were the new team clutch. And then they weren't. Why did the Rockies magic melt? What happened to that team of destiny?
There is no answer. There are grasping explanations, there are urgent reasons why the disaster occured, but there is no honest answer. The 8-day layoff hurt them. The Red Sox were a far superior team. But inferior teams have won before, and teams with long layoffs have won before. There is no true answer, unless one is content to just make up new rules for why teams win every year.
There is a necessary humility in knowing you don't have the answer. It's a humility many sportswriters lack. This is why our team lost, and this is what has to be done to fix it. Usually fixing it involves firing someone. Sometimes it's making a trade or signing a player.
I think the Dodgers should make a run at Alex Rodriguez. He's such a polarizing figure --- already Peter Gammons, Buster Olney, and Jemele Hill have all ripped him at espn.com. But if he hits, and he will, I don't care. I don't care about the whole question of clutch. He's worth going after. But he's not the answer. No one player is ever the answer. The trap door can open on any team.
There are, sometimes, lessons to be learned from failure. Weaknesses shown, a path to improvement indicated. But there are no definitive answers. During many of the recent offseasons the Yankees thought they had found their answer. They were always just one big signing away. There is no foolproof way to win as much as you'd like, when you'd like. There is always the possibility for the "what the hell happened" moment to come again. A player leaves unexpectedly, or the team just goes into the tank out of nowhere. There are just no guarantees. So much in baseball just doesn't make sense. Even when there are reasons they may not quite add up to what happened. There are good reasons why the Red Sox won the World Series --- but these reasons shouldn't have added up to a sweep, not over a team that had been playing as well as the Rockies.
I hope 2007 Rockies are remembered well. But in the short term I fear it's a huge mark against them that they didn't win the World Series. Becoming worthy of remembrance seems more and more like an all or nothing sort of thing in modern times. Maybe the perspective of time is needed. Does anyone even care anymore that the 1951 Giants didn't win the World Series? It's irrelevant to the legend of that team. Heck, the '51 Giants are far more famous than the '51 Yankees, who won the World Series. Maybe the same will happen with the Rockies. I have too much respect for what they did down the stretch, including those awful 7 losses they handed the Dodgers, to think of them as failures.
I wonder if Grady Little is wondering what the hell happened right now. The year got really bumpy toward the end, but he seemed comfortably on track to manage the team next year. There were no reactionary sportswriters calling for his head, and management said he would be back. He had a contract.
And now? Who knows? Someone out there knows, I guess. I'm not sure who, though. All these rumors out there, about Girardi, and now Torre --- it's hard to ignore. No one with the Dodgers will come out and say Grady will be back next year. These are bad omens. I'm guessing he feels like a trap door below his feet has opened up, at the least. I don't think it's right. I've had problems with some of Grady's decisions, but this whole round of drawn-out speculation, fueled by the Dodgers' unwillingness to just end it with a definitive statement ( one way or the other ) isn't fair to Grady. Whether he's back next year or not, this past week has been a shame. Part of that falls to Buster Olney and his rumor-mongering, and part of it falls to the Dodgers.
I just hope the Dodgers aren't falling into the Yankee trap of thinking after each failure that they have the answer. Not only does arrogance not breed winning, but it makes it unpleasant to root for a team. I sure hope Colletti and McCourt are proceeding with all due humility. But this thing with Little and Torre bothers me. 2005 was DePodesta's fault. That ended up being the answer for that year. Will 2007 go down as Grady's fault, perhaps for playing those spoiled kids too much?
I don't know. I just wish the Dodgers were still a classy organization. I'm looking at what's happened with the team the last ten years, and sometimes I just wonder what the hell happened.
25 October 2007
Maximizing Beckett
When JD Drew came up in the first inning of World Series Game 1, I thought he would hit a home run. Really. That would have made the score 5-0, and put the game firmly in Boston's control, especially with Beckett pitching. But Beckett is just gravy, you know? The Red Sox would have been firmly in control even with Matsuzaka or Schilling or Lester starting as well. Near locks to win the game, being up 5-0. Beckett would have been made superfluous. Frakly with the game well in hand up 5-0, his excellence would have been wasted.
So my Drew flight of fancy inspired another flight of fancy. If Drew hit that home run to make it 5-0 in the first inning, why not pull Beckett from the game? Save him for game 2, or even game 3 if he can't start a day after throwing an inning. Look, he's scheduled to start only two games anyway. It's not as if the Red Sox would be losing any of his starts by pulling him from a lopsided game and holding him back to start a possibly closer game when his great pitching would be more useful.
There are so many objections to this idea, I know. I can just imagine the consternation and outrage this would cause McCarver and Buck! It would be worth it just to hear them spit bile and indignation at the decision. "You can't run a real baseball team like a strat-o-matic team! You have to win the game you're playing first!" McCarver would be even more outraged than he was when Manny loafed to first on his home run single in the ALCS!
This idea wouldn't work if Schilling or Matsuzaka wasn't ready to come in and "start" game 1 after Beckett was pulled with the 5-0 lead. It could also possibly screw up Beckett, though this objection I find unpersuasive. It would be unorthodox, and leave the manager open to all kinds of criticism if the unlikely happened and the Red Sox gave up their 5-0 first inning lead.
Of course, JD Drew did not hit a home run in the first inning to make it 5-0. He hit a double down the right field line, that unclutch bum, to make it just 3-0. And Beckett stayed in the game, of course. And the Sox went on the win 13-1. So his great effort was kind of wasted anyway. It could have been Schilling in there giving up 4 runs in 6 innings and the Sox would have won just as comfortably. Not that there was an obvious moment to pull off my crazy plan. By the time the Red Sox were up by 5 runs Becket had already pitched 4 innings. I wonder if it would have been possible to pull Beckett at this point and have him be fresh enough to start game 3. I think so, but I'm not the manager.
This is an extreme case of creative pitcher usage, I guess. But even the mild cases of creative pitcher usage are rare now, outside of a do-or-die playoff game. I wish we'd see creative, leverage maximizing pitcher usage out of managers more often. The most obvious flaw in pitcher usage these days is in the deployment of closers, of saving the best reliever for only a ninth inning lead, and not using him often when the game is truly on the line. This has been covered by countless other bloggers; I won't belabor the point. In the Dodgers' case it wasn't so bad most of the year, because they had two elite closer-type relievers in Broxton and Saito. But even with these two there were times when Beimel would pitch in the seventh with the game on the line, because Broxton was the eighth inning guy. The only defined role a pitcher should need is that he gets outs!
The Red Sox won game one, and that's great for them. But they merely held serve, with a home game with their ace going. Let's assume Beckett wins his game 5 start as well. The Sox still have to then win 2 of 5 non-Beckett games to become champions. That doesn't sound too hard, but they are counting on their rather thin second-line pitching to hold down the deep Rockies offense in all of those games. This thing isn't over yet.
So my Drew flight of fancy inspired another flight of fancy. If Drew hit that home run to make it 5-0 in the first inning, why not pull Beckett from the game? Save him for game 2, or even game 3 if he can't start a day after throwing an inning. Look, he's scheduled to start only two games anyway. It's not as if the Red Sox would be losing any of his starts by pulling him from a lopsided game and holding him back to start a possibly closer game when his great pitching would be more useful.
There are so many objections to this idea, I know. I can just imagine the consternation and outrage this would cause McCarver and Buck! It would be worth it just to hear them spit bile and indignation at the decision. "You can't run a real baseball team like a strat-o-matic team! You have to win the game you're playing first!" McCarver would be even more outraged than he was when Manny loafed to first on his home run single in the ALCS!
This idea wouldn't work if Schilling or Matsuzaka wasn't ready to come in and "start" game 1 after Beckett was pulled with the 5-0 lead. It could also possibly screw up Beckett, though this objection I find unpersuasive. It would be unorthodox, and leave the manager open to all kinds of criticism if the unlikely happened and the Red Sox gave up their 5-0 first inning lead.
Of course, JD Drew did not hit a home run in the first inning to make it 5-0. He hit a double down the right field line, that unclutch bum, to make it just 3-0. And Beckett stayed in the game, of course. And the Sox went on the win 13-1. So his great effort was kind of wasted anyway. It could have been Schilling in there giving up 4 runs in 6 innings and the Sox would have won just as comfortably. Not that there was an obvious moment to pull off my crazy plan. By the time the Red Sox were up by 5 runs Becket had already pitched 4 innings. I wonder if it would have been possible to pull Beckett at this point and have him be fresh enough to start game 3. I think so, but I'm not the manager.
This is an extreme case of creative pitcher usage, I guess. But even the mild cases of creative pitcher usage are rare now, outside of a do-or-die playoff game. I wish we'd see creative, leverage maximizing pitcher usage out of managers more often. The most obvious flaw in pitcher usage these days is in the deployment of closers, of saving the best reliever for only a ninth inning lead, and not using him often when the game is truly on the line. This has been covered by countless other bloggers; I won't belabor the point. In the Dodgers' case it wasn't so bad most of the year, because they had two elite closer-type relievers in Broxton and Saito. But even with these two there were times when Beimel would pitch in the seventh with the game on the line, because Broxton was the eighth inning guy. The only defined role a pitcher should need is that he gets outs!
The Red Sox won game one, and that's great for them. But they merely held serve, with a home game with their ace going. Let's assume Beckett wins his game 5 start as well. The Sox still have to then win 2 of 5 non-Beckett games to become champions. That doesn't sound too hard, but they are counting on their rather thin second-line pitching to hold down the deep Rockies offense in all of those games. This thing isn't over yet.
18 October 2007
The Lost Offseason
Yesterday I had the happy realization that the new season of Lost was just a few months away. For just a moment, I was giddy with excitement. And then, because my thoughts often come tumbling in strange patterns, I hoped I would have the same kind of anticipatory excitement for the Dodgers around, say, February of next year.
Stay with me, even if you aren't a fan of Lost. Why would it be that I have such excitement for the new season of Lost, even more than two months out? It's because the season finale was so great. More specifically, it's because what the writers of Lost have given us to look forward to is so great. They've had their vision all along, and they've stuck with it. And that's what the baseball offseason is really all about. Give us something to look forward to. Commit to your own excellence! Don't be scared. Don't retreat to the hackneyed old storylines, the reliable comfort of known mediocrity, the tried tricks that everyone has seen before. Resist the Gonzalezes, the Garciaparras, the Pierres. They are the laugh tracks of the baseball world. The sound of laughter without real laughter. The sound of wins without real wins.
Lost came under a lot of criticism over the past few years. People doubted the direction of the show. They wanted more answers. I never understood this. I never saw the slippage in the show. The writers never did lose their way, and I think the strong season finale showed that.
The Dodgers seem to be on the edge of losing their way. Their strong vision for the future has already faltered --- look at how many roadblocks they put in front of Loney and Kemp --- will they completely abandon what is left of their vision? I fear, sometimes, that the new season may end up having all the excitement of a season of Leave it to Beaver. Safe, predictable, mediocre. 0.500. Jason Bay instead of Matt Kemp. Nomar Garciaparra instead of Andy LaRoche. The offseason for the Dodgers is not about getting Alex Rodriguez. That's not going to happen, most likely. What it is about is realizing that Alex Rodriquez is just about only potentially available veteran out there worth getting. But I don't know if the Dodgers know that. A few weeks ago, dodgers.com reporter Ken Gurnick reported that Frank McCourt had vowed to stay the course. In the next few months we'll find out what that really means. What course are they on? It's possible to follow a course faithfully and still end up lost.
Stay with me, even if you aren't a fan of Lost. Why would it be that I have such excitement for the new season of Lost, even more than two months out? It's because the season finale was so great. More specifically, it's because what the writers of Lost have given us to look forward to is so great. They've had their vision all along, and they've stuck with it. And that's what the baseball offseason is really all about. Give us something to look forward to. Commit to your own excellence! Don't be scared. Don't retreat to the hackneyed old storylines, the reliable comfort of known mediocrity, the tried tricks that everyone has seen before. Resist the Gonzalezes, the Garciaparras, the Pierres. They are the laugh tracks of the baseball world. The sound of laughter without real laughter. The sound of wins without real wins.
Lost came under a lot of criticism over the past few years. People doubted the direction of the show. They wanted more answers. I never understood this. I never saw the slippage in the show. The writers never did lose their way, and I think the strong season finale showed that.
The Dodgers seem to be on the edge of losing their way. Their strong vision for the future has already faltered --- look at how many roadblocks they put in front of Loney and Kemp --- will they completely abandon what is left of their vision? I fear, sometimes, that the new season may end up having all the excitement of a season of Leave it to Beaver. Safe, predictable, mediocre. 0.500. Jason Bay instead of Matt Kemp. Nomar Garciaparra instead of Andy LaRoche. The offseason for the Dodgers is not about getting Alex Rodriguez. That's not going to happen, most likely. What it is about is realizing that Alex Rodriquez is just about only potentially available veteran out there worth getting. But I don't know if the Dodgers know that. A few weeks ago, dodgers.com reporter Ken Gurnick reported that Frank McCourt had vowed to stay the course. In the next few months we'll find out what that really means. What course are they on? It's possible to follow a course faithfully and still end up lost.
10 October 2007
The Boring Snakes
by Joshua Worley
Will anyone east of the Mississippi River be watching the National League Championchip Series? The Cubs, I guess, were the only good national draw in the National League playoffs this year. This is a shame, since the Rockies are the best story, by far, in all of baseball. But I think the habit of ignoring them is just too ingrained for them to really capture a wide range of interest. If the Cubs are loveable losers, then the Phillies are the surly losers. There's just an unpleasant edge around the Phillies and their fans, and I'm not sorry at all to see them out of the playoffs. The Phillies unexpected ascent into the playoffs never felt as pure and joyous as the Rockies ascent did, probably because of the palpable anger there would have been in Philadelphia if they had come up short yet again.
Then there are the Snakes. I don't think the Diamondbacks are a very good story, nor a fun team to watch, particularly. Except for one exception nothing about this team excites me, unlike the other three teams still alive in 2007. They win games, somehow, and that's about it. That fine for their fans, and boring for everyone else. How many fans are we talking about, though? They have trouble even selling out their home ballpark for the NLCS. What a waste of a playoff spot, in a way. But they did earn it. I'm glad Bud Selig and TBS can't rig things to get their way, which would certainly have not included the Snakes making the NLCS.
The Snakes do the bare minimum required to move along. I wish the Dodgers could have done even that much! I congratulate the Snakes on getting way more out of their middling team than any analysis says they should have. As a Dodger fan I'm very jealous.
The Snakes don't hit well, on balance. Worse, they have no exciting hitter, no one I will make sure I watch when he comes up, no one whose looming presence in the batting order I'm aware of. I want to see Ortiz and Manny hit for Boston. And Holliday and Tulowitzki in Denver. And Sizemore and Hafner and Martinez in Cleveland. You don't want to miss it when these guys hit, especially Ortiz and Holliday. But on the Snakes? I don't know, maybe Byrnes, a little bit. But he's more of a second tier guy, whom the other three teams have plenty of as well, such as Helton or Youklis or Hawpe.
One could argue that it's exciting to watch Upton for his raw potential. Not Chris Young, though. That would be like asking a non-Dodger fan to get excited for watching Ethier bat. Maybe in a few years, but not now. Other than the occasional home run Young just doesn't do much. Young couldn't even get his on base percentage above 0.300. And not Drew either. I'd rather watch JD than Stephen at this point. Yeah, Stephen has hit some home run in the playoffs. So did Mickey Hatcher. Didn't make Hatcher a must watch batter.
Other than Webb the Snakes don't have any pitcher to get excited for. But yeah, Webb is big stage worthy. Webb v Francis is an underrated matchup, as good in its way as Beckett v Sabathia in the AL. But Webb is it. The Snakes have good relievers, but none of them are electric. No Gagne in his prime, or Saito, or Papelbon, or Rivera. The team is just a neverending expanse of blah. Lots of blah and lots of wins. Curse those wins!
I'm really looking forward to watching the Rockies play. The Snakes? Well, someone had to be the opponent. Maybe it's just as well it's not the Cubs, so that the great story of the Rockies isn't obscured by all the nonsense about loveable losers and billy goat curses. Let the Snakes be more fodder for the Rockies amazing win streak. I sure don't want to see them in the World Series.
Will anyone east of the Mississippi River be watching the National League Championchip Series? The Cubs, I guess, were the only good national draw in the National League playoffs this year. This is a shame, since the Rockies are the best story, by far, in all of baseball. But I think the habit of ignoring them is just too ingrained for them to really capture a wide range of interest. If the Cubs are loveable losers, then the Phillies are the surly losers. There's just an unpleasant edge around the Phillies and their fans, and I'm not sorry at all to see them out of the playoffs. The Phillies unexpected ascent into the playoffs never felt as pure and joyous as the Rockies ascent did, probably because of the palpable anger there would have been in Philadelphia if they had come up short yet again.
Then there are the Snakes. I don't think the Diamondbacks are a very good story, nor a fun team to watch, particularly. Except for one exception nothing about this team excites me, unlike the other three teams still alive in 2007. They win games, somehow, and that's about it. That fine for their fans, and boring for everyone else. How many fans are we talking about, though? They have trouble even selling out their home ballpark for the NLCS. What a waste of a playoff spot, in a way. But they did earn it. I'm glad Bud Selig and TBS can't rig things to get their way, which would certainly have not included the Snakes making the NLCS.
The Snakes do the bare minimum required to move along. I wish the Dodgers could have done even that much! I congratulate the Snakes on getting way more out of their middling team than any analysis says they should have. As a Dodger fan I'm very jealous.
The Snakes don't hit well, on balance. Worse, they have no exciting hitter, no one I will make sure I watch when he comes up, no one whose looming presence in the batting order I'm aware of. I want to see Ortiz and Manny hit for Boston. And Holliday and Tulowitzki in Denver. And Sizemore and Hafner and Martinez in Cleveland. You don't want to miss it when these guys hit, especially Ortiz and Holliday. But on the Snakes? I don't know, maybe Byrnes, a little bit. But he's more of a second tier guy, whom the other three teams have plenty of as well, such as Helton or Youklis or Hawpe.
One could argue that it's exciting to watch Upton for his raw potential. Not Chris Young, though. That would be like asking a non-Dodger fan to get excited for watching Ethier bat. Maybe in a few years, but not now. Other than the occasional home run Young just doesn't do much. Young couldn't even get his on base percentage above 0.300. And not Drew either. I'd rather watch JD than Stephen at this point. Yeah, Stephen has hit some home run in the playoffs. So did Mickey Hatcher. Didn't make Hatcher a must watch batter.
Other than Webb the Snakes don't have any pitcher to get excited for. But yeah, Webb is big stage worthy. Webb v Francis is an underrated matchup, as good in its way as Beckett v Sabathia in the AL. But Webb is it. The Snakes have good relievers, but none of them are electric. No Gagne in his prime, or Saito, or Papelbon, or Rivera. The team is just a neverending expanse of blah. Lots of blah and lots of wins. Curse those wins!
I'm really looking forward to watching the Rockies play. The Snakes? Well, someone had to be the opponent. Maybe it's just as well it's not the Cubs, so that the great story of the Rockies isn't obscured by all the nonsense about loveable losers and billy goat curses. Let the Snakes be more fodder for the Rockies amazing win streak. I sure don't want to see them in the World Series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)