Thud. Ouch.

by Andrew on Aug 28, 2007 12:17 PM PDT in News

On Sunday, Jayson Werth banged out five singles and four RBIs to raise his average to .294. Last night, he got four more hits and a walk, giving him base hits in nine consecutive at bats. After this explosion, Werth is hitting .312/.408/.484 on the season. I look at this and wonder how on Earth could we let a player like this slip away over less than a million dollars?

I realize that Werth is not going to hit .312 all season. If he hit .260 like he probably would over time, his numbers move to something like .260/.358/.432. Even if they did slip that low, wouldn't Werth look a lot better on the Dodger bench than Brady Clark, Marlon Anderson or Mark Sweeney? In the end, the reason why Jayson Werth still isn't a Dodger is the same reason why Ned Colletti does a lot of the things that I hate. The man is afraid of risk.

In Werth's case, it was the risk of keeping a player who hadn't swung a bat in a year and a half. There were no players that would have had to been dropped to keep him, all the Dodgers would have to do is move Jason Repko to the minor leagues. Still, even though Werth is a player who combines great plate discipline with four good tools, he couldn't be kept around for a paltry sum because of Ned's fear of the unknown. How much better would the Dodgers future look if instead of signing Juan Pierre, we kept Werth and a couple of decent backups like Jose Cruz Jr., or even Jason Repko with Matt Kemp waiting in the wings if something went wrong? How much more optimistic could we be about this offseason if we knew we had the resources and the roster flexibility to go after Andruw Jones, or even Mike Cameron. None of this happened because Ned can't take a risk.

Why does our roster get filled with proven veterans? They aren't nearly as much of a risk as rookies. Coming into this season, many people thought that there was very little difference between Nomar Garciaparra and James Loney, yet Ned went with the proven veteran because it represented less of a risk. Maybe James Loney wouldn't be able to hit big league pitching, who knows? Nomar had been there before, and we knew what he would do. Somewhat ironically, Nomar has proved to be a much bigger risk than Loney ever could be.

Similarly, Ned makes sure to have a great plan B, even at the expense of plan A because you don't want to lose to freak injuries. Nomar and/or Kent might get hurt? Let's go get Julio Lugo. Don't want to start the year with Matt Kemp in left? Let's sign Luis Gonzalez for more depth. The few players he has signed that could be considered risky like Randy Wolf had tons of backups behind them. There are plenty of us that would have wanted Billingsley in the rotation at the start of the year, but Ned needed that depth. If the Dodgers miss the playoffs by only a little this year, it could very well be because Brett Tomko and Mark Hendrickson got shots at the rotation before Billingsley did. All of this just because we needed to have depth at all costs.

The same thought can be used to find out why Ned has the sell low mentality. Ned has only traded one player in his tenure that wasn't going through struggles or miles away from the bigs: Duaner Sanchez. Selling high on a player is a risk. There's the guarantee you're going to get slammed by the media initially, plus the risk that no one will let you forget it if the player doesn't come back down to Earth. Even if the guy never does a thing after you trade him, people will still rip on the move, generally with an argument containing the words "who's to say" (the Lo Duca clause). If you sell low, no one but obsessed people like me will care. The media will give you kudos for getting rid of a struggling player, and unless that person goes on to be a hall of famer, it's likely there won't be any notice if the player succeeds elsewhere. No one that actually matters is calling for Ned's head because Werth has found success elsewhere. For all the reasons that the media hated Paul DePodesta, no one with a voice has made one peep about getting rid of Shane Victorino. Similar things happen if you buy low.

Why can't you pay over slot money for a draft pick? Because that's a risk. That's over a million dollars that could end up turning into nothing. If you spend that money on Joe Beimel, you're going to get a middle reliever in the bigs. Never mind the fact that if the draft pick pans out he'll become far, far more valuable than that million dollars you gave him. The fact that there's a chance that the move will end up netting you nothing means that Colletti will shy away from it.

A good GM needs to be bold. A good GM needs to take risks. If you just sit there and make safe acquisitions all day, you just turn the game into an auction for overvalued talent, and that's a game that no team but the Yankees can win. Until Ned Colletti starts making moves that have some chance at upside with some risk attached, we'll be watching the same type of mediocrity we've been accustomed to the last 20 years.

------------------------------

Luis Gonzalez is not happy about getting phased out of the starting lineup.

Athletics Nation thinks that they can get Andy LaRoche for Estaban Loaiza. When I dream, I want a pony.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ned has it backward

I'd rather see him gathering veterans to support the youngsters then placeholders who don't want to be support players when the kids have knocked down the doors.

Luckily his plan A's have fizzled and we do have the high upside of Kemp and Loney now filling the Plan A spots. In a perfect world La Roche would have taken Nomar's spot when he went down. So even Ned's low risk methods can be overcome as long as he doesn't trade away the high award kids for some of that Plan A talent.

For all his low risk moves he still kept the grade A talent available. The core of Billingsley, Broxton, Meloan, Kershaw, McDonald, Loney, Abreu, Hu, Kemp, Ethier, and La Roche should be enough to overcome Ned's fondness for mediocre veteran talent.

If we could just do something about his penchant for trading for middle relief pitchers

by ToyCannon on Aug 28, 2007 1:14 PM PDT 0 recs

Nah Man

Ned DOES take risks, huge risks.

Rather than going with the relatively sure bet that Werth would be a half-way decent player for cheap, Ned made the risk of paying Juan Pierre. Furthermore, risking and betting that Juan Pierre would remain a regular into his 30's (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2007/8/6/81452/19671).

Now that's a risk.

by wiffle ball legend on Aug 28, 2007 2:05 PM PDT 0 recs

critique of management in general

I got to thinking the other day of some sins for which we are still paying, namely Konerko and Beltre, albeit for two completely different reasons.

First base has been a hole for us for years (Karros, McGriff, that fat guy we got from the Astros). At the time, Konerko was our top prospect with a great minor league track record. Management thought it best to stick with fan favorite Karros and swing Konerko for Jeff Shaw when he was 22 with all of 150-odd MLB AB's. Shaw was a good reliver for a few years, but as we have seen, amazing closers can be found for basically nothing (Gagne/Saito). When Konerko finally got consistent AB's in the bigs at age 23, he OPS'd 862 and has never dropped below 704 (second lowest OPS is 844!). He is still playing at a high level to this day at a very reasonable salary of $12M annually. His salary numbers for '01-'05 (all salary numbers from Cot's Baseball Contracts):
3 years/$23M (2003-05)
03:$6.25M, 04:$8M, 05:$8.75M
$75,000 bonus for winning ALCS MVP award
2003-04 salaries increase $0.5M/year if traded
2 years/$6.1M (2001-02), re-signed 11/02
01:$2.3M, 02:$3.8M

Now, I like Loney a lot, but maybe the presence of Konerko allows us to move Loney for something else before the trade deadline.

With respect to Beltre, it was not so much that we didn't resign him, but when Lasorda started his major league clock. Tommy brought him up when he was 19 straight from AA. Let's say he spends the rest of his age 19 season at AA and his age 20 season at AAA. That's two more years he is under control at a reasonable salary doing what he does pretty much every year: playing amazing defense and an OPS around 720 with some amazing spikes here and there. Here are his contract numbers from his time with the Dodgers:
1 year/$5M (2004), avoided arbitration 2/04
1 year/$3.7M (2003)
3 years/$5.05M (2000-02)
$1.5M signing bonus
00:$0.5M, 01:$.75M, 02:$2.3M
$0.25M in performance bonuses in 02 based on PAs

I realize these moves happened through no fault of Colleti, but just something I got to thinking about. However, he is certainly not without his own sins. Jon Weisman did a great job breaking down the idocy of not re-signing Greg Maddux. TrueBlue has documented the Werth/Victoriano debacles. What about leting Marlon Anderson go in favor of Ramon "not the pitcher" Martinez?

Has anyone notice Edwin Jackson turning it around a little. I realize his peripheals are a little smokey, but there is still a lot of talent there at only 23 years old. And he is doing it at against major league players. But these are all sunk costs at this point and have been analyzed from every angle.

I do have hope for the future. Mid-2008 we could be looking at a rotation of:
Penny
Lowe
Billingsley
Schmidt?
Kershaw/McDonald/Elbert

Bullpen would be:
Saito (hopefully)
Broxton
Meloan
Beimel
Kershaw/Meloan/Elbert (long-relief)

Hopefully Trade Ned doesn't blow it too badly this off-season. I won't be holding my breath.

by ladogger on Aug 28, 2007 2:12 PM PDT 0 recs

Starting Beltre's

clock early was a mistake. I'm still a big fan, he was my favorite player until he left. I just closed my eyes the 1st half and opened them in the 2nd half.

E Jackson looks to have turned a corner, but very few teams could afford to send him out every 5th day, while being one of worse pitchers in baseball. He ended up in a great position with Tampa Bay, but if he had stayed with us we would have probably let him go due to his command problems and the fact he was out of options. Young guys just aren't going to get the time at the major league level to work things out under Ned. He seems adverse to growing pains, and is more comfortable with veterans last dying days.

by ToyCannon on Aug 28, 2007 2:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

Who says Ned isn't taking orders

from Frank McCourt? Ned's moves remind me a lot of Dan Duquette while he was in Boston, except that Ned has more to work with in the farm.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

by scareduck on Aug 28, 2007 5:39 PM PDT 0 recs

I wonder

if this article would have been written has Werth not gone 9 for 9 in his lastg 2 games? He's a 4th OF'er at best....when was the last time Werth stole 50 bases or had 200 hits in a season?
Does everyne forget what Marlon Anderson did for LA last September? Had Ned not traded for him, they wouldn't have made the playoffs.
How Tiffany and Guzman doing in Tampa?
If anyone reads the ESPN chats with Jim Callis and Keith Law, they both thought LA did a great job in putting Billz in the pen this season....just look at how he is pitching now...does anyone think it was as a result of his work in the pen? Law has stated that all teams should do that with their young pitchers...see Joba Chamberlain, and the negative results that the Cubs are dealing with in Prior and Wood.
Putting Billz in the pen was a smart move....not a risky move. The long term benefits are more important thant him missing a few months in the rotation.
Is it possible that Andruw Jones becomes just a mediocre hitter? His play in CF has become mediocre. In his biggest year of his career...his walk year....he is hitting .222 with 34 hrs and 84 rbi, 118 ks vs 62 bbs. Is he really worth the $20mm/yr that Boras will command in the off-season? I don't think so.
Now, I agree that Loney should have been starting since spring training, and that LA made a mistake not re-signing Beltre, and Pierre isn't the a guy I wanted for 5 years, but we do still have Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Loney, Laroche, Hu, Billz, Kershaw, Broxton and Meloan...a bright future. Give Ned credit for seeing how successful Colorado and Arizona have been by playing their prospects. The fact that Ned didn't trade any of them tells me he is going the way of the youth movement.
Plus, if Peter Gammons is correct, Kershaw will be in the LA rotation in '08...is that a risky move?

by rayg on Aug 28, 2007 6:51 PM PDT 0 recs

In Case You Missed It

"I realize that Werth is not going to hit .312 all season. If he hit .260 like he probably would over time, his numbers move to something like .260/.358/.432. Even if they did slip that low, wouldn't Werth look a lot better on the Dodger bench than Brady Clark, Marlon Anderson or Mark Sweeney? In the end, the reason why Jayson Werth still isn't a Dodger is the same reason why Ned Colletti does a lot of the things that I hate. The man is afraid of risk."

Andrew states that Werth a) wouldn't hit this well through an entire season and b) Werth would look good on the bench over a lot of the other guys that were there, implying that Werth would be on the bench with those numbers (although he should still start over Pierre with those numbers).

Also, to say that Werth sucks because he doesn't have 50 steals or 200 hits in a season is unfair considering that the only chance Werth got to start as an everyday player was 2005 where he missed a month and half of the season, and didn't perform well when he came back due to the lingering aftereffects of his injured wrist (due to an A.J. Burnett fastball in Spring Training). A healthy, starting Werth would outproduce Pierre in every important category besides stolen bases and batting average, although his OBP would end up being higher since he walks a lot more.

by Rich on Aug 29, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

shocking

that Rich came to the defense of Andrew....shocking. I did read what he wrote...my question was would the article have been written if Werth hadn't gone 9 for 9....in case you missed it, Rich.

by rayg on Aug 30, 2007 8:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

Re

Honestly, no, but that's just because the nine for nine hit streak is what made me make the connection about all of the things I dislike about Ned. I still missed Werth before the streak started.

by Andrew on Aug 31, 2007 10:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

I wonder...what point you are trying to make...

I am assuming your reference to 50 steals and 200 hits is Juan Peter? I have so much to say, but someone else summed it up so well I had to share: http://www.firejoemorgan.com/
You guys know how we feel about Juan Pierre. We like him as a dude. We like the way it looks like he's borrowing a giant man's helmet. We like calling him John Peter. And we think he stinks at baseball.

Just for giggles and shits, I plugged the phrase "Juan Pierre" into our Bill Simmons 1980's Movie Reference Software (available at BestBuy), and here's what I got:

"In the world of out machines, Juan Pierre is the WOPR." Not bad for $24.95!

And now, take it away, Jayson Addcox of mlb.com!

What is it about the on-base percentage that a player like Juan Pierre -- who leads the Dodgers in at-bats, runs scored, hits, stolen bases, triples and games played -- gets knocked for not having his higher than .350?

So much to digest, so quickly. Let's chuck the grammatical wonkiness out the window and just try to deal with the question at hand: Why does Juan Pierre get knocked for having an on-base percentage below .350? I made a list!

Because he's a lead-off hitter.
Because he has no power to make up for his lack of OBP.
Because he's being paid $45 million by the Dodgers.
Because his OBP isn't just a hair below .350 -- it's .324 this year.
Because .324 is good enough for 134th out of 171 eligible MLB batters.
Because there's a massive conspiracy against Juan Pierre.

By the way, why didn't he just say "gets knocked for not having his higher than .400"? It would have made Pierre look a lot better to anyone who was too lazy to look up his actual OBP.

Of course, Juan Pierre leads the Dodgers in triples, so I'm supposed to let it go, I guess. I'm supposed to forget that he's a lead-off hitter who doesn't walk for a second, and give him credit for leading the team in AB's? Wait -- hold on -- I'm supposed to be giving him credit at all for leading the team in AB's when in the same sentence you're admitting that he can't get on base? Ba-wuh?

He's batted in four different spots in the lineup this season. When he's hitting well, he's in the leadoff or No. 2 slot, but when he's slumping, manager Grady Little hasn't hesitated putting Pierre in the seventh or eighth slot.

I know I'm opening myself up to "you wouldn't know because you never played baseball" criticism here, but is it really so difficult to hit in different spots in the line-up? Does Juan Pierre's head explode when he sees that he's batting in the 7th spot? Is he suddenly going up to the plate and trying to catch the ball in his mouth because he has no idea how to hit 7th?

(Incidentally, I did play baseball, at least when I was young. Played 3rd base for my little league team. My coach encouraged me to play 3rd like a hockey goalie, and ended up earning the nickname "Reggie" that year thanks to late 80's Bruins goalie Rejean Lemelin. What were we talking about again?)

The issue with Pierre is that he doesn't walk. Plain and simple, his OBP suffers because he averages one walk every 21 at-bats. On the season, he has just 24 walks in 510 at-bats, which is the lowest in the Majors. On the flip side, Pierre doesn't strike out often, either. He has struck out just 32 times this season, which is once every 15.9 at-bats, making him the hardest batter to strike out in the Senior Circuit.

In the red corner: walking. Getting on base. Not getting out. Making the pitcher throw at least four pitches to you. Getting to first base so you can do the one thing you do well: steal bases.

In the blue corner: not striking out. In Pierre's case, finding other ways to get out. If you believe us, not really a good thing. Not a bad thing, just not a good thing.

Not striking out isn't "the flip side" of not walking. It's a different goddam coin. A coin that you keep in your pocket when talking about baseball because it's not really relevant, unless you want to talk about the virtues of the coin itself in a vacuum. You know what I mean. (Hopefully. Because I don't.)

Also, those of you who like not-striking-out-ability usually point to things like productive outs and "good things happening when you put the ball into play." Of course, Pierre's a lead-off hitter, so more than any other player in the line-up, he's going to have the lowest percentage of opportunities for "productive outs" anyway.

This season, Pierre leads the Dodgers with 147 hits. He is fifth in the NL with 45 multi-hit games, he leads the Majors with 14 sacrifice bunts and he's second in the Majors only to Jose Reyes with 50 stolen bases, and yet his OBP supposedly isn't cutting it.

"Jayson, it's Darryl. Just going over your copy for the latest mlb.com article...No, yeah, it's fine. One thing. Looks like the word 'supposedly' somehow got into the last sentence of paragraph eight...Right...No? You sure?"

"He's a disruptive force when's he's on base," Little said. "The other team has to be concerned with him regularly and it disrupts the pitcher. The whole key is for him to get on base and that's what we like."

Write it down, kids: When writing an article in support of Juan Pierre, it's okay to admit that he has a low OBP, as long as you quote the manager of his team saying that the whole key is for him to get on base. A thing, which, you've already pointed out, he does poorly.

Compared to some of the elite leadoff batters in the game, Pierre's .324 on-base percentage is considerably low. Reyes has an OBP of .375, Hanley Ramirez is at .392, Chone Figgins is at .392 and Ichiro is at .396, so the consensus is that a No. 1 or 2 hitter in the lineup needs to have a .350 or higher OBP.

But like Pierre said, "It is what it is."

Can't argue with that.

by ladogger on Aug 29, 2007 12:36 AM PDT 0 recs

Saying Someone Leads the League in ABs

Is like saying a running back leads the league in carries. Who cares? I don't know why sportswriters still cite that as something which proves the worth of a player.

by Rich on Aug 29, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up 0 recs