To me the most damning allegation in the "Alex Rodriguez tested positive in 2003" story has nothing directly to do with A-lightning-Rod*. It's this line: Three major league players who spoke to SI said that Rodriguez was also tipped by Orza in early September 2004 that he would be tested later that month.
*--- This is a horrible nickname for A. Rodriguez, I admit, because it's too long and complicated. But I think in that way it's also fitting as a one-time nickname because he is such a complicated player and subject.
I guess I wasn't paying enough attention when the Mitchell Report came out, because Orza was accused of something similar in that report. I find the subject of which players were using and what punishment they should have and what effect it should have on their hall of fame candidacies tedious, which I guess is why I missed it the first time, but this accusation against Orza is something else again.
For better or worse we ( most fans and baseball writers ) have decided that we don't want baseball players juicing and that we care about actually enforcing that rule and we want those who break that rule to be caught and punished. This is a statement about what kind of competitive framework we want for baseball; without some kind of competitive framework we can't have any confidence in the game as a fundamentally fair thing. Another statement about the competitive framework of baseball is that we support a particular team and want that team to do everything it can to win including going after the best free agents it can get. Simply put, all teams should try to win, which doesn't mean they have to try to maximize winning right now, but they should be aiming for winning at some point.
Owners and the Players Union claim to support the competitive framework of baseball, in particular the two aspects of it detailed above. They undermine the game and our faith in the legitimate competition when they do not uphold the competitive framework. The Owners strike against the game with collusion ( among other things ). The Players Union, it seems, strikes against the integrity of the game by trying to circumvent the drug testing system.
When a single player juices and tries to circumvent the testing it is disappointing, but not surprising or indicative of widespread corruption. Players have been cheating for a long time. We can, perhaps with some amount of self-imposed naïvity, think of a player doing this as an isolated incident. It is, certainly, just one player. There may be lots of other cases of "just one player", maybe 104 such, for example, but they are all still individuals acting alone who in theory could be caught and corrected by large systems and organizations whose purpose is to do the right thing. You know, the player's union and the owners. But if the head of the player's union is ( allegedly, and I hope it's not true! ) warning players about upcoming tests then now we have an entire organization trying to defeat the competitive structure of baseball. It is the difference between a single soldier torturing prisoners on his own and the head of state setting a policy of jamming bamboo under fingernails as an interrogation technique.
When Randy Wolf signs a contract for one year and 5.5 million I wonder. Not too much, given the economy and his patchy performance and injury history, but I do wonder how the market for pitchers could turn so dramatically. That is not the contract I thought Wolf would get entering the off-season, and I'm sure it's not the contract he thought he'd get. He got plenty more his first time around with the Dodgers when he was coming off injury!
There are individual teams who don't really seem to try to win, or maybe they're just really inept. But there are also times when the owners band together in an effort to defeat the competitive structure of the game. A collusion to drive down the price of free-agents. They've done it before. I'm not saying they're doing it now, and honestly I don't think they are, but the bad economy would be the perfect cover for it, you know? Maybe ... maybe I do think they are doing it, because sometimes I think people will do whatever they can get away with. And there is also this depressing thought: maybe the owners are who I think they are. I sure hope not.
So maybe we have corruption on both sides. Rich men doing whatever they can to rip apart the competitive structure of the game we love. Maybe it's best just not to think about it too much. When does Spring Training start?
07 February 2009
06 February 2009
April Investigation
The Dodgers open on the road, with 4 games against the Padres. I think opening against the Padres is a good way to ease out of exhibition games into the regular season. It's sort of like a major conference college football team scheduling a Division I-AA marshmallow team for an easy win to begin the season. I suppose the Padres could shock the Dodgers like Appalachian State rising up to beat Michigan, but that seems unlikely, especially if Peavy is gone by the start of the regular season.
Three road games against the Snakes follow the opening series. This is the moment Snakes fans have been waiting for. The time when they can avenge the shocking sweep near the end of last season that decisively put the Dodgers in charge of the NL West. Both Haren and Webb should be going in that series, unless the Snakes do something weird with their rotation. This should be the toughest series the Dodgers have in April, unless the Giants take a huge step forward.
After a week on the road, a week of drifting around the American southwest trying to find themselves, the Dodger arrive home to face the Giants in a three game series. Now the schedule for this series is an abomination, because there is a day off right in the middle of it after the home opener on Monday. Previous to this season I had only seen these split series during the opening week of the season when there were shenanigans with having opening day on a Monday or even a Sunday. What is so important about having opening day on a Monday? And if it is so important, why not just move the series up to Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday? Perhaps the Dodgers anticipate needing a full day to clean up the mess after fans riot opening day because it took forever to park and because they were enraged by the sight of Manny was in a Giants uniform.
If the Giants go with Lincecum on opening day the Dodgers should miss him for this series. The Giants may well be the third contender in the NL West along with the Dodgers and Snakes, so this could be an important early season series.
The Dodgers' first homestand concludes with three weekend games against the Rockies. In theory these are among the easiest games the Dodgers should have all year. After this series the Dodgers will have played every other team in the NL West. If they split with the contenders and dominate the bad teams they should have a record of at least 8-5. That's a winning percentage of 0.615, and realistically I think the Dodgers should finish the season with a winning percentage of +0.600 against their own division if they seriously want to contend.
After a day off the Dodgers go back on the road for a 9 game trip. The Dodgers' early schedule is road heavy, with road games outnumbering home games 16-7 in April. So even though the Dodgers don't face too many tough teams in April it may still be a tricky month. For this trip they have three in Houston, followed by three in Colorado, followed by three in San Francisco. Houston ended last year well and the Rockies always put up a decent fight at home, so those games will be tough even if the teams don't seem very intimidating. But it's the last series of the road trip ( and last of the month ) that looms as the most important of the trip and maybe even of the early season.
By the time this series comes we'll know better if the Giants are contenders or not. It's not so much about the Giant's record at that point, but about how good their offense looks. If the Giants are 11-6 on the strength of a lot of one-run wins and great pitching but the offense still stinks, then they will probably fall back to earth later. But if they are 9-8 with an offense that is clearly better than last year, then they are probably legit contenders. This is the kind of series that could easily turn a good April bad for the Dodgers if they get swept. This is the series that defines the early season as much as any one series can --- a battle on hostile ground against the arch-enemies, the up-and-comers, the Manny-rivals --- the hated Giants.
The final day of the month is a home game against the Padres, but that game belongs to May. April ends with the Giants. May it end well.
Three road games against the Snakes follow the opening series. This is the moment Snakes fans have been waiting for. The time when they can avenge the shocking sweep near the end of last season that decisively put the Dodgers in charge of the NL West. Both Haren and Webb should be going in that series, unless the Snakes do something weird with their rotation. This should be the toughest series the Dodgers have in April, unless the Giants take a huge step forward.
After a week on the road, a week of drifting around the American southwest trying to find themselves, the Dodger arrive home to face the Giants in a three game series. Now the schedule for this series is an abomination, because there is a day off right in the middle of it after the home opener on Monday. Previous to this season I had only seen these split series during the opening week of the season when there were shenanigans with having opening day on a Monday or even a Sunday. What is so important about having opening day on a Monday? And if it is so important, why not just move the series up to Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday? Perhaps the Dodgers anticipate needing a full day to clean up the mess after fans riot opening day because it took forever to park and because they were enraged by the sight of Manny was in a Giants uniform.
If the Giants go with Lincecum on opening day the Dodgers should miss him for this series. The Giants may well be the third contender in the NL West along with the Dodgers and Snakes, so this could be an important early season series.
The Dodgers' first homestand concludes with three weekend games against the Rockies. In theory these are among the easiest games the Dodgers should have all year. After this series the Dodgers will have played every other team in the NL West. If they split with the contenders and dominate the bad teams they should have a record of at least 8-5. That's a winning percentage of 0.615, and realistically I think the Dodgers should finish the season with a winning percentage of +0.600 against their own division if they seriously want to contend.
After a day off the Dodgers go back on the road for a 9 game trip. The Dodgers' early schedule is road heavy, with road games outnumbering home games 16-7 in April. So even though the Dodgers don't face too many tough teams in April it may still be a tricky month. For this trip they have three in Houston, followed by three in Colorado, followed by three in San Francisco. Houston ended last year well and the Rockies always put up a decent fight at home, so those games will be tough even if the teams don't seem very intimidating. But it's the last series of the road trip ( and last of the month ) that looms as the most important of the trip and maybe even of the early season.
By the time this series comes we'll know better if the Giants are contenders or not. It's not so much about the Giant's record at that point, but about how good their offense looks. If the Giants are 11-6 on the strength of a lot of one-run wins and great pitching but the offense still stinks, then they will probably fall back to earth later. But if they are 9-8 with an offense that is clearly better than last year, then they are probably legit contenders. This is the kind of series that could easily turn a good April bad for the Dodgers if they get swept. This is the series that defines the early season as much as any one series can --- a battle on hostile ground against the arch-enemies, the up-and-comers, the Manny-rivals --- the hated Giants.
The final day of the month is a home game against the Padres, but that game belongs to May. April ends with the Giants. May it end well.
05 February 2009
Angular Mannymentum
The attendance even in Los Angeles -- because they were averaging around 41,000 or 42,000 -- it went up to 48,000 or 49,000 the minute he got there. I mean, the very day he got there it went up 6,000 And you're talking about $50 or $60 a head. **--see below for chain of custody of quote
That's Boras talking there, and I think we all know who the he is. Spin is Boras's middle name, both for what his head does when he sits up in bed in the middle of the night and for the words that come out of his mouth. There are two strategies of verbal spin, and Boras employs them both. He exaggerates the magnitude of numbers and also isolates them from meaningful context.
I'm going to apply some torque to Boras's spin by find out what the numbers really are, and then attempt to put them into their proper context. First I will look at yearly Dodger attendance in this decade.
Dodger Stadium Attendance
Year --- average per game
2001 --- 37253
2002 --- 38655
2003 --- 38748
2004 --- 43065
2005 --- 44489
2006 --- 46401
2007 --- 47617
2008 --- 46056
There is a trend here that ended in 2008. Say, Manny joined the Dodgers in 2008. So Dodger attendance rose every year this decade until the year Manny joined the Dodgers. Therefore Manny hurt attendance!
That's ridiculous, but that's also what the numbers seem to say if they are isolated from context. Before going into that context, I think it's worth examining another conclusion that one could draw from the numbers. Here it is: Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers before the 2004 season. By far the greatest increase in attendance came between 2003 and 2004. So McCourt's decisions have increased attendance. Therefore McCourt has made the Dodgers more popular than ever!
I don't know if that's true or not. One problem is that it's a little too pat --- one would expect ownership changes to maybe take a year or a few to start having real effects, maybe? And there are outside forces at work that I don't know how to compensate for. If Dodger attendance falls this year it may well be the economy that drives it, not any decisions by management. Perhaps a similar case could be made for the increase in 2004. Whatever the truth, I have a feeling that the McCourts look at those attendance numbers and conclude that they are doing the right thing most of the time.
Boras framed the Manny effect with an in-season attendance breakdown, and of course that's not a bad way to do it. Let's get the numbers right first, though, okay?
Dodger average attendance pre-Manny in 2008 was 44577. ( Not 41 or 42 thousand something. ) Average Dodger attendance post-Manny was 49370. That is an increase of 4793 fans per game. That's a lot; it sure seems like a real effect.
But wait, Manny joined the team August 1, and the Dodgers were involved in an exciting division race in August and September. Maybe attendance spiked because of that. Or maybe attendance is usually higher the last two months of the season regardless. The obvious way to add context to our Manny breakdown is to examine the attendance change the last two months of the season in years when there was no possible Manny-effect.
Year --- pre-Aug -- Aug+Sep --- increase
2006 --- 45466 --- 48380 --- 2914
2007 --- 46730 --- 49391 --- 2661
2008 --- 44577 --- 49370 --- 4793
We don't know for sure, but it sure seems likely that Dodger attendance would have increased by about 2700 even without Manny around. Without Manny maybe the Dodgers would have faded from the race by mid September, but the same happened in 2007 too. I think a reasonable ( and tentative ) conclusion is that Manny added about 2000 fans per game. And sold a lot of wigs.
** ---The chain of custody for this quote is Jon Weisman <-- Rob Neyer <-- New York Daily News <-- Scott Boras <-- Nehchazgor, meaning that I followed a link provided on Dodger Thoughts to a blog entry by Neyer which contained a quote from a New York newspaper attributed to Scott Boras who was instructed on what to say by the demon Nehchazgor.
That's Boras talking there, and I think we all know who the he is. Spin is Boras's middle name, both for what his head does when he sits up in bed in the middle of the night and for the words that come out of his mouth. There are two strategies of verbal spin, and Boras employs them both. He exaggerates the magnitude of numbers and also isolates them from meaningful context.
I'm going to apply some torque to Boras's spin by find out what the numbers really are, and then attempt to put them into their proper context. First I will look at yearly Dodger attendance in this decade.
Dodger Stadium Attendance
Year --- average per game
2001 --- 37253
2002 --- 38655
2003 --- 38748
2004 --- 43065
2005 --- 44489
2006 --- 46401
2007 --- 47617
2008 --- 46056
There is a trend here that ended in 2008. Say, Manny joined the Dodgers in 2008. So Dodger attendance rose every year this decade until the year Manny joined the Dodgers. Therefore Manny hurt attendance!
That's ridiculous, but that's also what the numbers seem to say if they are isolated from context. Before going into that context, I think it's worth examining another conclusion that one could draw from the numbers. Here it is: Frank McCourt bought the Dodgers before the 2004 season. By far the greatest increase in attendance came between 2003 and 2004. So McCourt's decisions have increased attendance. Therefore McCourt has made the Dodgers more popular than ever!
I don't know if that's true or not. One problem is that it's a little too pat --- one would expect ownership changes to maybe take a year or a few to start having real effects, maybe? And there are outside forces at work that I don't know how to compensate for. If Dodger attendance falls this year it may well be the economy that drives it, not any decisions by management. Perhaps a similar case could be made for the increase in 2004. Whatever the truth, I have a feeling that the McCourts look at those attendance numbers and conclude that they are doing the right thing most of the time.
Boras framed the Manny effect with an in-season attendance breakdown, and of course that's not a bad way to do it. Let's get the numbers right first, though, okay?
Dodger average attendance pre-Manny in 2008 was 44577. ( Not 41 or 42 thousand something. ) Average Dodger attendance post-Manny was 49370. That is an increase of 4793 fans per game. That's a lot; it sure seems like a real effect.
But wait, Manny joined the team August 1, and the Dodgers were involved in an exciting division race in August and September. Maybe attendance spiked because of that. Or maybe attendance is usually higher the last two months of the season regardless. The obvious way to add context to our Manny breakdown is to examine the attendance change the last two months of the season in years when there was no possible Manny-effect.
Year --- pre-Aug -- Aug+Sep --- increase
2006 --- 45466 --- 48380 --- 2914
2007 --- 46730 --- 49391 --- 2661
2008 --- 44577 --- 49370 --- 4793
We don't know for sure, but it sure seems likely that Dodger attendance would have increased by about 2700 even without Manny around. Without Manny maybe the Dodgers would have faded from the race by mid September, but the same happened in 2007 too. I think a reasonable ( and tentative ) conclusion is that Manny added about 2000 fans per game. And sold a lot of wigs.
** ---
04 February 2009
Pierre is Gone
When I think of the Dodgers I never think about Juan Pierre anymore. When I think of Dodger outfielders I don't even think of Pierre. I think of young stalwarts Ethier and Kemp. I think of Manny ( will he come back? ) I think of Andruw Jones even, and wonder that a player could be so bad, and so secretly fat, and so full of smiles as he struck out. I think of potential Manny replacements such as Adam Dunn. I think of Repko, and marvel that he is still banging around with the Dodgers at the AAA level or so, presumably banging into fences and shortstops down there. Sometimes I even think about Milton Bradley and wish things could have been different. What a player Bradley is, when strong in body and mind! But no, he is long gone, and the Cubs will probably curse the day they signed him anyway, if he predictably breaks down while playing the field.
Pierre is still here, but he is already gone. I'm not saying he won't play for the Dodgers this year. He might even get 600 at bats with the team if things break right. I mean wrong. It depends on perspective. I have my own, but I won't deny Pierre his. He wants to play, and I admire that, even as I rue the possible consequences of his ambition. But I don't really rue. Not anymore. No worry, no rue, no dread, no fret. Why? Because Juan D'Vaughn Pierre is gone.
Pierre is gone because his claim to fame is gone. His claim to a piece of my mental energy is gone. His fame was his contract and that which it justified, his place in the lineup, everyday, like Groundhog Day, no matter what young player might be better than him. He's not as good as Ethier and Kemp, and now everyone knows it. Colletti knows it. Torre knows it. I think even Plaschke knows it. He will never start ahead of Ethier or Kemp again, if all are healthy. Mission accomplished. Not even the whisper that the Dodgers need him as a leadoff hitter can be heard. Furcal's return has drowned that out.
Pierre wants out. Get in line behind Repko. Watch Jones already get his wish. Settle in, Pierre, because you're in Blue for a while longer. Those three years left are a prison sentence. A penalty box. The wages of hubris. The wages of being human, and wanting money. You get paid, but you won't play. I bet that deep down Pierre cares a lot more about playing everyday than about getting paid a lot. So make that exchange! But that's not how the world works. He can't throw it back now. It's a part of him. An unwanted limb. The union wouldn't let him anyway.
Even the anticipation is gone. He hit his Dodger home run. It seemed impossible that it would ever happen, and then he did it, and that brief thrill was done. There's really nothing left. That's life, I guess.
Pierre is still here, but he is already gone. I'm not saying he won't play for the Dodgers this year. He might even get 600 at bats with the team if things break right. I mean wrong. It depends on perspective. I have my own, but I won't deny Pierre his. He wants to play, and I admire that, even as I rue the possible consequences of his ambition. But I don't really rue. Not anymore. No worry, no rue, no dread, no fret. Why? Because Juan D'Vaughn Pierre is gone.
Pierre is gone because his claim to fame is gone. His claim to a piece of my mental energy is gone. His fame was his contract and that which it justified, his place in the lineup, everyday, like Groundhog Day, no matter what young player might be better than him. He's not as good as Ethier and Kemp, and now everyone knows it. Colletti knows it. Torre knows it. I think even Plaschke knows it. He will never start ahead of Ethier or Kemp again, if all are healthy. Mission accomplished. Not even the whisper that the Dodgers need him as a leadoff hitter can be heard. Furcal's return has drowned that out.
Pierre wants out. Get in line behind Repko. Watch Jones already get his wish. Settle in, Pierre, because you're in Blue for a while longer. Those three years left are a prison sentence. A penalty box. The wages of hubris. The wages of being human, and wanting money. You get paid, but you won't play. I bet that deep down Pierre cares a lot more about playing everyday than about getting paid a lot. So make that exchange! But that's not how the world works. He can't throw it back now. It's a part of him. An unwanted limb. The union wouldn't let him anyway.
Even the anticipation is gone. He hit his Dodger home run. It seemed impossible that it would ever happen, and then he did it, and that brief thrill was done. There's really nothing left. That's life, I guess.
03 February 2009
Anticipation
I miss the anticipation of a well hit ball.
I think anyone who has watched baseball on television for some amount of time has an intuition of what is a hit and what isn't right after contact is made. It's the speed of the ball reversed off the bat. You can tell it's going to be a hit. Where will it land? The ball has purpose. The batter has given it life. Anticipation. If a Dodger has hit the ball, I feel excitement. An opponent, dread. The moment of the well hit ball off the bat is a promise of action. Running, throwing. Tumbling and diving, if we're lucky.
And then reverse. Like the ball off the bat, the angle of view reverses abruptly, and we see what happens. Single, maybe double? Lineout? Sharp ground out? Find the hole? Over the fence? Into a glove? Reverse, and anticipation may become joy. Or regret. Or disbelief. ( How did he make that play? )
I remember all the times toward the end of last season when Jeff Kent promised safety and delivered dismay. A rip, a streak on the screen, a pulled bullet to the left, elation --- then reverse --- it's low, oh no, there is goes into the glove of the third baseman.
Now I know how this ends. This wasn't supposed to be about Manny. But it is. This is what Manny is. He's the feeling of the well hit ball, even before he makes contact. He comes up to the plate and it's like he's already whipped the bat around and created that sweet line drive contact with the ball. Even before he hits it we're wondering how far it's going to go. He's anticipation before there's anything to anticipate.
Look, I want the Dodgers to win as much as any other Dodger fan. I understand that Adam Dunn or some other slugging outfielder might be a better option for the cost than Manny. Or maybe that the money would better be used on pitching. Pick your argument, pick your writer, pick your formula, opinions vary. But winning is not why I want Manny back so desperately. It's the anticipation, the feeling of watching a legend. And the fans know it. We knew it the moment he stepped into Dodger blue. That's why we so desperately want him back.
And if he's not back? Well, then he's a memory. Like everything else.
I think anyone who has watched baseball on television for some amount of time has an intuition of what is a hit and what isn't right after contact is made. It's the speed of the ball reversed off the bat. You can tell it's going to be a hit. Where will it land? The ball has purpose. The batter has given it life. Anticipation. If a Dodger has hit the ball, I feel excitement. An opponent, dread. The moment of the well hit ball off the bat is a promise of action. Running, throwing. Tumbling and diving, if we're lucky.
And then reverse. Like the ball off the bat, the angle of view reverses abruptly, and we see what happens. Single, maybe double? Lineout? Sharp ground out? Find the hole? Over the fence? Into a glove? Reverse, and anticipation may become joy. Or regret. Or disbelief. ( How did he make that play? )
I remember all the times toward the end of last season when Jeff Kent promised safety and delivered dismay. A rip, a streak on the screen, a pulled bullet to the left, elation --- then reverse --- it's low, oh no, there is goes into the glove of the third baseman.
Now I know how this ends. This wasn't supposed to be about Manny. But it is. This is what Manny is. He's the feeling of the well hit ball, even before he makes contact. He comes up to the plate and it's like he's already whipped the bat around and created that sweet line drive contact with the ball. Even before he hits it we're wondering how far it's going to go. He's anticipation before there's anything to anticipate.
Look, I want the Dodgers to win as much as any other Dodger fan. I understand that Adam Dunn or some other slugging outfielder might be a better option for the cost than Manny. Or maybe that the money would better be used on pitching. Pick your argument, pick your writer, pick your formula, opinions vary. But winning is not why I want Manny back so desperately. It's the anticipation, the feeling of watching a legend. And the fans know it. We knew it the moment he stepped into Dodger blue. That's why we so desperately want him back.
And if he's not back? Well, then he's a memory. Like everything else.
07 January 2009
Relief from Manny angst in the form of reliever rumors
Allegedly and reportedly and backed by various unnamed sources and indications, the Dodgers are now a major player in the reliever market.
I am in favor of a strong bullpen even beyond its value in helping a team win games. When the Dodgers lose a game after blowing a late lead I sometimes have trouble sleeping, so a strong bullpen is good for my restfulness and peace of mind. So as long as they were as good as advertised I would love to see the Dodgers add some combination of Cruz, Hoffman, Reyes, and Mota. No, wait, that's wrong, it should only be the first three. Though to be safe it should just be the first two. Or maybe just Cruz. And then I wonder if I've picked the best of the four.
If only I knew how good they would be. This is the lament of every general manager as well, or at least it should be. Especially with relievers. The GM who signs a reliever is buying a pair of dice based on the fact that some other guy was rolling a lot of sevens with them. But that's not quite fair: relievers aren't quite as random as dice rolls. Some of the rumored four are better bets than the others, certainly.
Mota coming back as a Dodger reliever scares me. I don't remember him fondly either. His performance with the Dodgers was good, but I judge him a punk based on his run-ins with Piazza while a Dodger, and I judge him a cheater based on his performance enhancement suspension after he left the Dodgers. I judge him a shaky reliever based on his numbers the last few years. His ERA has been near 5 the last three years. Why? He's still striking out almost a batter an inning, and his ratio of strikeouts to walks is nearly 2:1, so maybe it's just bad luck, unless --- let me digress here for a moment. The very worst thing a relief pitcher can do is give up lots of home runs. Some would say, no it's the walks, but for me it's home runs. As evidence I present game four of last year's NLCS. Shane crybaby Victorino. Matt washed-up Stairs. I rest my case. It's home runs. Unemployment to relievers who give up lots of homeruns! Mota gives up lots of home runs. Lots and lots. Over the last three years 26 of them, in about 170 innings. Some people can live with that, but I can't. Not from a punk cheater reliever.
Reyes coming back to the Dodgers would surprise me. I guess it would be incarnation number four of Fernando in LA, with Antonio Osuna and the 97-98 version of Dennys Reyes being incarnations two and three. Reyes' last three years were with the Twins, and overall he was a good pitcher. Reyes was nearly unhittable in 2006, with an ERA less than 1, great strikeout and walk numbers, and only 3 home runs allowed. He was also good in 2008. But in 2007 he walked as many as he struck out and was probably lucky to have an ERA of just less than 4. He was awful in 2005 with the Padres, with the same weakness as in 2007: too many walks. He's due for another heavy walk season in 2009, except that no reliever is ever due for anything. I'd call him a coin flip to be either good or middling, but I don't want to mix dice and coin metaphors in the same post.
Cruz has been great ever since the Snakes abandoned the Cruz as starter experiment of 2006. He's struck out more than a batter an inning the last two years and is 10-1 during that span. That 10-1 mark probably doesn't really mean much but it sure looks good, doesn't it? That one loss was to the Red Sox in 2007. So as long as Torre doesn't pitch Cruz against the Sox when the Dodgers face them in the World Series I think this signing would work out. Get it done, Ned!
Trevor Hoffman is the famous one of the bunch. He's also really old. I remember how delightful it was to no longer fear Hoffman last year. But he wasn't all that bad, not by the numbers. I think Broxton can close no problem but I won't mind if he goes back to the eighth inning. Depth is the key. Since Hoffman will likely add to the quality arms in the Dodger 'pen, I'm all in favor of signing him.
I don't know how much money the Dodgers will eventually spend on the 'pen, and I really don't know how much adding some of these relievers would help the Dodgers next year. Signing relievers is probably the easiest way for a GM to make observers think the club is improved. But when the games are actually played my guess is as good as any GM's guess when it comes to how the relievers will actually perform. Now there is a scary thought.
I am in favor of a strong bullpen even beyond its value in helping a team win games. When the Dodgers lose a game after blowing a late lead I sometimes have trouble sleeping, so a strong bullpen is good for my restfulness and peace of mind. So as long as they were as good as advertised I would love to see the Dodgers add some combination of Cruz, Hoffman, Reyes, and Mota. No, wait, that's wrong, it should only be the first three. Though to be safe it should just be the first two. Or maybe just Cruz. And then I wonder if I've picked the best of the four.
If only I knew how good they would be. This is the lament of every general manager as well, or at least it should be. Especially with relievers. The GM who signs a reliever is buying a pair of dice based on the fact that some other guy was rolling a lot of sevens with them. But that's not quite fair: relievers aren't quite as random as dice rolls. Some of the rumored four are better bets than the others, certainly.
Mota coming back as a Dodger reliever scares me. I don't remember him fondly either. His performance with the Dodgers was good, but I judge him a punk based on his run-ins with Piazza while a Dodger, and I judge him a cheater based on his performance enhancement suspension after he left the Dodgers. I judge him a shaky reliever based on his numbers the last few years. His ERA has been near 5 the last three years. Why? He's still striking out almost a batter an inning, and his ratio of strikeouts to walks is nearly 2:1, so maybe it's just bad luck, unless --- let me digress here for a moment. The very worst thing a relief pitcher can do is give up lots of home runs. Some would say, no it's the walks, but for me it's home runs. As evidence I present game four of last year's NLCS. Shane crybaby Victorino. Matt washed-up Stairs. I rest my case. It's home runs. Unemployment to relievers who give up lots of homeruns! Mota gives up lots of home runs. Lots and lots. Over the last three years 26 of them, in about 170 innings. Some people can live with that, but I can't. Not from a punk cheater reliever.
Reyes coming back to the Dodgers would surprise me. I guess it would be incarnation number four of Fernando in LA, with Antonio Osuna and the 97-98 version of Dennys Reyes being incarnations two and three. Reyes' last three years were with the Twins, and overall he was a good pitcher. Reyes was nearly unhittable in 2006, with an ERA less than 1, great strikeout and walk numbers, and only 3 home runs allowed. He was also good in 2008. But in 2007 he walked as many as he struck out and was probably lucky to have an ERA of just less than 4. He was awful in 2005 with the Padres, with the same weakness as in 2007: too many walks. He's due for another heavy walk season in 2009, except that no reliever is ever due for anything. I'd call him a coin flip to be either good or middling, but I don't want to mix dice and coin metaphors in the same post.
Cruz has been great ever since the Snakes abandoned the Cruz as starter experiment of 2006. He's struck out more than a batter an inning the last two years and is 10-1 during that span. That 10-1 mark probably doesn't really mean much but it sure looks good, doesn't it? That one loss was to the Red Sox in 2007. So as long as Torre doesn't pitch Cruz against the Sox when the Dodgers face them in the World Series I think this signing would work out. Get it done, Ned!
Trevor Hoffman is the famous one of the bunch. He's also really old. I remember how delightful it was to no longer fear Hoffman last year. But he wasn't all that bad, not by the numbers. I think Broxton can close no problem but I won't mind if he goes back to the eighth inning. Depth is the key. Since Hoffman will likely add to the quality arms in the Dodger 'pen, I'm all in favor of signing him.
I don't know how much money the Dodgers will eventually spend on the 'pen, and I really don't know how much adding some of these relievers would help the Dodgers next year. Signing relievers is probably the easiest way for a GM to make observers think the club is improved. But when the games are actually played my guess is as good as any GM's guess when it comes to how the relievers will actually perform. Now there is a scary thought.
09 December 2008
Boras and Sabathia
My fear is that Sabathia ( or his agent ) makes a statement soon that no, he didn't actually say he wanted to be a Dodger, that while he would welcome an offer from the Dodgers Colletti misinterpreted what he said. Such a correction by Sabathia would make Colletti and the Dodgers look foolish and be a blow to Dodger fans who like the feeling that a player wants to come to the Dodgers. No matter what Sabathia were to say in the future, I think that he does want to play for the Dodgers, perhaps more than any other team, since they are the only team that hits all his reported desires ( National League, contenders, Southern California ) but that doesn't mean he wants that known in the middle of a free agency period. I wouldn't want that kind of thing known if I was his agent.
What does Colletti have to gain from announcing that Sabathia is interested in the Dodgers? It briefly makes the fans happy, but unless he can follow through and actually sign Sabathia it's just going to make us madder in the end. Don't tease us like that, man! If you don't get Sabathia now the only excuse you have now is that you had to sign Manny instead.
Ah yes, Manny. I will admit that compared to all the others out there he is the only free agent I've ever wanted this offseason. There are grim words of warning I should heed --- he's slow, he's old, he's a DH now, he's mercurial --- but whatever. He's also Manny, and we Dodger fans have only known happiness so far with him. I don't know if Colletti ( or McCourt ) wants Manny back too, but if he does, then I think Manny and Boras were the target audience for Colletti's boast about Sabathia's desire for the LA blue. Colletti's statement was a way to float the threat of the Dodgers signing Sabathia and leaving Manny without perhaps his most lucrative landing spot without having to actually make an offer to Sabathia.
According to Jayson Stark, Scott Boras has requested a meeting with the Dodgers. Boras may have reasons of his own unrelated to anything Colletti has said, but the timing is suggestive. If Boras really has found no other serious bidders for Manny then he may want to lock in the Dodgers before that option disappears. If there are other clubs interested at the right price then Boras will still want to maintain the appearance that the Dodger are heavily involved and must be bid against.
Scott Boras may be a snake but like any other agent he's very simple to deal with if you can deal from a position of strength. You just make your offer and ignore everything he says after you've made your offer except for the words "Yes" and "No". You ignore what he says about other teams bidding. You ignore what he says about how exceptionally valuable the player is. When Colletti meets with Boras this is all he has to say: "I have room in my budget for one big free agent. It's either Manny or Sabathia. This is our offer for Manny. You can either take it or we go to Sabathia instead. Let me know by noon tomorrow what your answer is."
What does Colletti have to gain from announcing that Sabathia is interested in the Dodgers? It briefly makes the fans happy, but unless he can follow through and actually sign Sabathia it's just going to make us madder in the end. Don't tease us like that, man! If you don't get Sabathia now the only excuse you have now is that you had to sign Manny instead.
Ah yes, Manny. I will admit that compared to all the others out there he is the only free agent I've ever wanted this offseason. There are grim words of warning I should heed --- he's slow, he's old, he's a DH now, he's mercurial --- but whatever. He's also Manny, and we Dodger fans have only known happiness so far with him. I don't know if Colletti ( or McCourt ) wants Manny back too, but if he does, then I think Manny and Boras were the target audience for Colletti's boast about Sabathia's desire for the LA blue. Colletti's statement was a way to float the threat of the Dodgers signing Sabathia and leaving Manny without perhaps his most lucrative landing spot without having to actually make an offer to Sabathia.
According to Jayson Stark, Scott Boras has requested a meeting with the Dodgers. Boras may have reasons of his own unrelated to anything Colletti has said, but the timing is suggestive. If Boras really has found no other serious bidders for Manny then he may want to lock in the Dodgers before that option disappears. If there are other clubs interested at the right price then Boras will still want to maintain the appearance that the Dodger are heavily involved and must be bid against.
Scott Boras may be a snake but like any other agent he's very simple to deal with if you can deal from a position of strength. You just make your offer and ignore everything he says after you've made your offer except for the words "Yes" and "No". You ignore what he says about other teams bidding. You ignore what he says about how exceptionally valuable the player is. When Colletti meets with Boras this is all he has to say: "I have room in my budget for one big free agent. It's either Manny or Sabathia. This is our offer for Manny. You can either take it or we go to Sabathia instead. Let me know by noon tomorrow what your answer is."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)