Who's Left?

Looper

I love the “make your own argument” line. It really is an uninspiring bunch, isn’t it?

I voted for Pettitte by the way, mostly because I think he will be the best of the four in 2009 and he will likely sign a 1-year deal.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 10:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

re:

I forgot to add the stay with what we have, so that will be up shortly.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Jan 13, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I rather we just punch NedCo in the face!

Okay, maybe Pettitte, but it doesn’t sound like he’ll sign less for $10 million, and I can’t see the Dodgers offering Pettitte $10 million in the first place.

by Tripon on Jan 13, 2009 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Using the Torre scale

Didn’t Torre turn down a $5m deal with the Yankees then turn around and sign a deal with a lower average annual value with the Dodgers? Maybe the same scale can apply to Pettitte.

Either way, I wouldn’t be opposed to a 1 year, $12 million deal for Andy P

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 13, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s different with the Yanks for Pettitte, though. Basically, he thinks the Yankees haven’t respected him enough in these proceedings based on all he’s done for them. So while Pettitte might not sign with the Yankees for 10 million dollars due to many variables, he might be willing to sign with Team B (e.g. Dodgers, Astros) due to a desire to play with an old manager again or play near his hometown.

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yea. The link to where I saw that Pettitte stuff.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3819481&name=Neyer_Rob

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There seem to be more people commenting in the blog posts now. Did Eric bring people over from Dodger Thoughts?

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 1:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

Other than the fact that together ToyCannon and I are writing more and perhaps popping up on more Google News searches.

Perhaps my sandwich board advertising of the site has finally paid off! :)

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

From all over. Since he started we have been linked up with many sites such as Fannation,MLB.Com, and SI. Plus he responds to every comment directed at his column which helps continue the conversation.

So far we have since an increase in traffic of about 40% since he started blogging. I think people stopped coming when they did not see fresh content, and he has done a great job in keeping the site fresh while bringing in a new perspective.

It is a shame that Andrew can’t find the time to continue to blog here as I know he had a solid following.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Jan 13, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So if/once he comes back, it’ll be all 3 of you? I think it would be good to have more than 2 people blogging here, so there’s always somebody talking about something.

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Yup, it would be great. He’s still able to post if he wants but I’ve given up hope. We may do a recruitment drive for more writers as I’m not a good person for doing the game threads since I go to most of the home games.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Jan 13, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m friends with him on facebook now, so I’ll pester him incessantly until he de-friends me.

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you do this please post it on here.

I would love the opportunity.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 3:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What pitchers to sign.

I don’t understand why there are so many votes for Pettit ( especially taking into account what he would cost 10-12 million for one year). He ended up 2-7 with a an ERA of over SIX the second half of the season, with his fastball down in the eighties, and he’s only getting older, folks. As far as him not being respected by the Yankees . . . please. Players are always going on about not being respected when they don’t get enough money. Their offer to him, (10 million) for a guy who isn’t nearly as good as he used to be, is more than fair. Any more would be over-paying him. And despite all this talk of respect, the moment a player can get more money somewhere else he is gone, without any consideration for HIS respect of the team and its fans etc. You got to keep the business part of the game in mind and it is applied to both sides. Oh, and by the way, despite all Pettit’s love for the Yankess, I notice he didn’t have any trouble leaving for Houston when it was better for him to do so.

by nevernine on Jan 13, 2009 2:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pettitte went to Houston because it’s his hometown. I’m not sure if you’re implying it was because they offered him more money.

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Stults?

Why not?

Dude is probably only slightly worse (or better) than the last 3, and he’s essentially free.

Pettitte will still cost at least 8-10 million, if not more. And if McCourt really doesn’t want to go over 100 million in payroll, that means the Dodgers have zero financial flexibility left.

If the payroll was like 150 or something, then yeah, Pettitte would be great. Unfortunately, that’s not reality because Frank has property to buy.

by kensai on Jan 13, 2009 2:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

High on Stults

I agree on Stults, especially compared to the last 3. But I’d like him more as the 6th or 7th starter than the 5th. Just because no team really uses only 5 starters for the whole year; they usually have to go 7-8 deep at least, and it would be nice if those guys were also quality.

I like Pettitte because it’s only a 1 year deal. With Manny, Pettitte, and Mota, the payroll we likely settle at somewhere near $110m. Last year we were $120-125. I make no attempts to guess a budget, other than the fact that we seem interested in these players.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Don’t understand your math. We are at 77 million if you use the arbitration figures that Eric has estimated. Pettitte would only be signed for 10 Million putting us up at 87. You could still sign Manny and be right at 110 Million. If you forget about Manny you could sign Dunn for 13Million putting us at 100$. Either 110 or 100 should be doable unless things aren’t as rosy as the McCourts have said they are regarding season ticket renewals.

If they are going to spend 10Million who would you want them to spend the 10 million on. Pettitte, Garland, Wolf, or Looper? I’d rather spend it on Pettitte. Sure he faded in the 2nd half last year, he was also pitching in the toughest division in baseball. He’d be fine for us for the money. I’m not very convinced that Kershaw and McDonald can give me 170-200 productive innings next year, and I’m not sure I even want to put that strain on either of them. McDonald has yet to make one start in the major leagues and Kershaw is only 21.

At best Stults is a 5th starter and that is at best. Vargas is the same. Schmidt is a ?. Someone needs to be signed, I’d rather it be Sheets or Oliver Perez but we don’t seem to be interested in that route.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Jan 13, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is the budget 100 million?

77+10 For Petttite=87

Ned still wants a reliever and a left fielder, so he says. So 13 million for 2 players. Maybe 23 million if you really have confidence in McCourt (I don’t).

It’s questionable whether he can do both. I’d barely take Pettitte over those 3 if they all make the same money, sure. At the cost of passing on a good left fielder though? No thanks.

I think Stults is better than most people think. I think he is a slightly below average/average pitcher. He’s not replacement level like some people think if you separate his numbers as a starter from those as a reliever.

by kensai on Jan 13, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We already signed Mota, so we don't need another reliever (at least I hope).

Pettitte won’t keep us from signing Manny and he’s a huge upgrade over Stults/McDonald. Just to show you how much better he’s been than those two, here are there FIP’s (Fielding Independent Pitching) from last year:

Pettitte: 3.71 FIP in 204 IP in the AL East

Stults: 3.93 FIP in 117.2 IP in AAA, 4.68 FIP in 38.2 IP in MLB

McDonald: 3.92 FIP in 118.2 IP in AA, 3.78 FIP in 22.1 IP in AAA

So Pettitte put up a better FIP than either of the other two could manage to do in the minors, and he was pitching in the toughest division in baseball.

Here are their CHONE projections for next year:

Pettite: 3.93 FIP in 167 IP
Stults: 4.58 FIP in 144 IP
McDonald: 5.18 FIP in 126 IP

Thats obviously a big upgrade, and thats projecting Pettitte to pitch in the AL East. And you could even say Pettitte will pitch more innings then that, seeing as he’s pitched at least 200 innings each of the last 4 years. At Dodger Sims, McDonald is projected to replacement level, while Stults is projected for 0.29 WAR. Pettitte would come out about 2.5 WAR (similiar to Kuroda, although at Fangraphs he’s projected at 3.1 WAR), so he would be a 2.5 win upgrade That’s worth 11-12 million easy on the open market, and keeps us from having both Stults and McDonald in the rotation with little extra depth, which would be a disaster if Billz, Kuroda, or Kershaw got hurt and we had 3 near replacement level pitchers in the rotation.

Bottom line, Pettitte comes with little risk and is a huge upgrade for us, potentially division deciding. There’s little reason to be against signing him unless you a) Think he will keep us from getting Manny, which all signs point against or b)Are a fan of the D-Backs, Giants, or Rockies. ;)

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 12:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

I think I was pretty clear in stating my opinion in the very first post.

Pettitte will still cost at least 8-10 million, if not more. And if McCourt really doesn’t want to go over 100 million in payroll, that means the Dodgers have zero financial flexibility left.

I mean, I explicitly state that my level of want for Pettitte revolves around the hypothetical situation that McCourt doesn’t want to go over 100 million in payroll.

If the payroll was like 150 or something, then yeah, Pettitte would be great. Unfortunately, that’s not reality because Frank has property to buy.

Then I stated there that I obviously know that Pettitte is the best option remaining (all things being equal), but that money was the reason I was balking at him, and for the reasons I mentioned just 1 paragraph above.

So i’m well aware of the difference between Pettitte and Stults. The point is that i’m not willing to take him over signing Manny, nor do I think Stults is as bad as you represent.

On that front, Pettitte’s tRA the past three years is 4.73/4.63/4.50 and that 4.73 was in the NL Central. I guess, i’m just not enamored with acquiring him.

Stults’ tRA the past three years is 3.44/3.97/5.27. I’m not saying Stults is better, because that’s a small sample size, but he’s not a bad pitcher.

I also believe there is no projection system that is worth anything for prospects, so I would take those CHONE projections with a grain of salt. Same with using WAR projections. They just don’t manage to account for the obvious difference in talent and projection between some prospects. I hate to sound “old school” on people, but the farm system is where scouts still hold significant value.

Again, in a perfect world, where McCourt has the nuts to spend like the Yankees. Sure, I would love to have Pettitte at this juncture. My opinion on the matter, however, is slanted around what I think is most realistic, and that is a world in which McCourt wants to spend money like he’s an average market instead of the #2 market in the country.

by kensai on Jan 14, 2009 3:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

“I mean, I explicitly state that my level of want for Pettitte revolves around the hypothetical situation that McCourt doesn’t want to go over 100 million in payroll.”

But why bother with this hypothetical? What makes you thnk we won’t go over 100 million? Assuming the Mota signing is near 2 million, then payroll is basically right at 80 million now. Ned has said the priority is pitching, and we’re going after guys who will probably get at least 6-7 million per year. Then obviously we’re going after Manny as well, and he will take at least 20 million per year most likely. So I don’t see what makes you think the limit is 100 million, it seems pretty clear we can go over that.

"If the payroll was like 150 or something, then yeah, Pettitte would be great. Unfortunately, that’s not reality because Frank has property to buy. "

Why does payroll have to be 150 million to go after Pettitte? Why can’t it be in the 110-120 million range that it will likely be? Lets say Manny brings us to 100 million in this scenario, who would be better to spend the last 10 or so million on? Sheets maybe, but that is debatable, given that he would cost our first round pick. Otherwise I see no one else that comes near the value of Pettitte. And I don’t see how property has much to do with it. Most teams base their budget on how much they make, they’re not going to take money out of their own pockets to use on players. The McCourts can’t be expected to go in the red for the Dodgers and I don’t see evidence that they are using excessive profit from the Dodgers for property.

“I also believe there is no projection system that is worth anything for prospects, so I would take those CHONE projections with a grain of salt. Same with using WAR projections. They just don’t manage to account for the obvious difference in talent and projection between some prospects. I hate to sound "old school" on people, but the farm system is where scouts still hold significant value.”

Stults isn’t a prospect, he’s a 29 year old who’s a marginal major league player. And I definitely agree that projection systems can’t correctly account for talented prospects (they can’t see the tools that Hanley Ramirez or Juston Upton have, so they might not expect a breakout), but that is not Stults. He has middling stuff and there’s no reason to believe his projections belie his talent. As I showed, Pettitte pitched better last year in the AL East than Stults could do in the minors. Again, I think Pettitte is well worth the money and he will significantly outproduce Stults in 2009. I think we can afford him, but its still unlikely we will sign him.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 3:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why bother with any speculation then? This entire discussion is speculation, with people assuming what the payroll is without really having any inside knowledge of the reality of the situation. You just have more confidence that McCourt will spend money. I don’t. Simple as that.

I’m skeptical that he even wants to go over a 100, and if he does, I think he barely reaches 100, finishing below the 110 number, and certainly below the 120 figure. You only have to look at posts on True Blue LA itself for concerns about Frank’s cash flow.

It doesn’t have to be 150 million, that was just a number I picked out of the air to make a point. If the payroll was higher, I wouldn’t have a problem with Pettitte. I don’t think it is, therefore, I do have a problem with it. Do you think I actually want Stults over everybody else? No. I’d rather have Lowe and CC, but that’s not what I thought was within the realm of possibility.

He’s a 29 year old with a career 4.08 ERA in 14 major league starts with a tRA that says he might be a below average pitcher for 400k. My point about Stults is not that he has great stuff, it’s that the all the statistical projections i’ve seen are pointless when trying to translate AAA/AA numbers to the major leagues, especially for Stults, who was in a hitter’s park. MLE type systems have always sucked. Regardless, the point is about the opportunity cost (IMO), not that Stults is going to be as good as Pettitte.

If we can get Pettitte and Manny over Manny and Stults or Manny and one of those other 3 stiffs, then fine, I would love that. I just don’t think Frank will pay up because I have no confidence in him, and i’ll believe it when I see it.

This isn’t an argument about me disagreeing with you over player quality (besides Stults maybe). It was simply a misunderstanding over the payroll or something. We are now discussing what we think is the real payroll, essentially. It’s not something that is set in stone either way (unless you know Frank personally or have inside info), so it’s sorta pointless to carry on about whether the payroll will be 100 or 105 or 110 or 115 or 120 or whatever.

by kensai on Jan 14, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Alright agreed.

I think we can afford Pettitte and Manny and you don’t, so there’s not much more to say. Hopefully we can.

I do think we slightly disagree on Stults because even his AAA numbers aren’t great, so I don’t see him maintaining his 4.08 ERA, or even anything under 4.6.

I do hope we can get another starter though, even if it has to be one of the lesser guys, because going with Stults and McDonald in the rotation is not very smart and I don’t think McCourt will let Manny go unless some other team jumps in with a huge offer.

And no, I don’t know Frank personally. :)

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am praying that I am horribly wrong

by kensai on Jan 15, 2009 2:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm on board with Sheets

Perez not as much, but maybe if the money matches what he should produce. There was a good article on Fangraphs on what Perez should get paid vs what the Mets might pay him.

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Jan 14, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pettit

Tango and Cash,

Yeah, I know about going back home to Houston—then he goes back to New York—
so I don’t trust what players say when they move around, I always suspect other reasons relating to the team. Maybe once he got home the wife turned rabid on him. Hey, it happens.

by nevernine on Jan 13, 2009 4:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Don't Forget Clemens

Another major factor for Pettitte was that he was best buddies with Roger Clemens. Rocket signed with Houston on December 13, 2003, then Pettitte signed 3 days later. Pettitte’s 3-year contract was up after 2006, and Clemens’ future was up in the air, so I’m sure that played a huge role in Pettitte’s decision to return back to NY.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A couple Pettitte notes

Last few years:
2006: 214.1 IP, 3.82 x-FIP, $10.9m value dollars
2007: 215.1 IP, 4.47 x-FIP, $24.4m value dollars
2008: 204.0 IP, 3.79 x-FIP, $21.7m value dollars

2009: age 37 season
Projections:
Bill James: 192 IP, 3.66 FIP
Chone: 167 IP, 3.93 FIP
Marcel: 183 IP, 3.98 FIP

Seems well worth a one-year deal, much more so than the other pitchers were are supposedly interested in (Wolf, Garland, Looper).

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 4:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pettitte

seems a no-brainier from a rational fan perspective. A 1 year/10-12M with possible +1 team option ($3ish buyout) is something that should help and should not cause budget problems given everything we read from the Dodgers about next year’s attendance, etc. The problem is McCourt’s actual budget. Everything the Dodgers have done recently strongly indicate a much tighter purse than what the Dodgers should merit. The Dodgers should have been serious contenders for CC. We were not even in the conversation. I would normally not worry about a short term deal in the $15-20 range having any effect on other signings, but I suspect that is just not the case for the Dodgers.

by Paul Scott on Jan 13, 2009 5:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I’m not saying i’d rather have Stults over Pettitte.

I’m saying what we might have to give up for signing Pettitte due to McCheap’s budget might not be worth it. Granted, that’s speculation, but everything indicates that he’s really struggling for money.

I’ll believe that he spends 110-125 million when I see it. :o

by kensai on Jan 13, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was under the impression that the Manny money was ‘special money’ in that if it isn’t spent on him, it’s not going to be used on other players.

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I share that feeling

I don’t necessarily think the Dodgers believe Manny “pays for himself,” but you’re right: he’s a special case. I don’t think the club would mind terribly if Pierre was in the OF, and only a hitter of Manny’s special caliber could supplant him. I don’t share that thought, mind you, but I think that is how the club thinks. I think the rumblings about Dunn & Abreu were just ploys to get Manny back to the negotiating table.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You mean that he’ll make payroll exceptions for Manny?

Payroll With Manny=110-115
Payroll Without Manny=100

Something like that? And the 10-15 they might go over because of signing Manny would be just chalked up to the exception?

I could see that as realistic as well. Especially given the revenue he generated. Good point.

by kensai on Jan 14, 2009 3:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We don't want to do long, multi-year deals.

Ned said they could have tried to offer CC a 3 year deal but that was not sufficient for him. Pettitte would only take a 1 year deal probably so I think it wouldn’t hamper us to sign him .I think they’re not worried about the money so much as the long-term risk, having been burned by guys like Schmidt and Pierre.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 13, 2009 11:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Have these salary projections taken into account that Jones is only getting 5 million dollars in ’09 now instead of what, 18-22?

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 13, 2009 5:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Updated Salary Projections

I included an estimate of the Jones restructuring here (it is also on the sidebar on the right).

I don’t have the Mota deal yet as details haven’t yet been released.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot to mention

Tango & Cash, I like your signature line.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was too young to see the Dodgers win in ‘88 and I wasn’t a fan until the early 90’s, so my young life as a Dodger fan has been quite frustrating. One of my first Dodger memories was the Sportscenter announcement of Pedro for Delino.

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 14, 2009 7:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Market team, big market prices for fans

small market roster.

Thanks Frank McCourt!

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Jan 13, 2009 10:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

There's an excellent chance

the payroll will be in the $100-110 million range. I’m not sure how that qualifies as a “small market roster.” Sure, you can argue that the quality of some the players is poor. But the money is being spent on payroll.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But about $24 million of that payroll is being spent on

players on the DL, or on bonuses for players not on the team. Spending $70-80 million on players actually producing is more like mid market instead of a large market team.

by Tripon on Jan 13, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If a small or mid-market team

had $24 million in dead money, it would have that much less to spend overall.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 13, 2009 10:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Its still money spent on the players.

Its not like money spent for guys on the DL is paid for out of the sky. Look at the Giants, Zito will cost them 20M a year for the next 5 years, you think if he got hurt they could just act like he wasn’t on the payroll?Of course not, he would still count for just as much. We do spend like a big market team, we’ve already signed Furcal, Blake, Vargas, Mota, and Loretta and we’re trying to get Manny and another starter. You don’t see teams like the Twins doing that.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 13, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no we dont

if not we would have make CC an offer.

by XXDC2XX on Jan 14, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you hear about the Angels or Red Sox making an offer?

Because they’re both considered big market teams.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no i didn't

but he wanted to play in california and in the NL, and we nedded pitching, we were the perfect fit, we were a big market team and didn’t even try, if someone could have take him away from the yankees it was us, and again we didn’t even try.

by XXDC2XX on Jan 14, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I read that Ned talked to him, but said that we couldn’t go longer than 3 years, and that wouldn’t work for CC. So I would say we did try, but couldn’t have a chance at him without doing a very long deal, which management deemed too risky, even for CC.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly though...

This is Los Angeles. There is very little reason we should be even discussing whether the payroll will be 100-110.

That seems like a lot to smaller market teams, but it’s really not that much for the Dodgers. The proof is in the pudding when you see McCourt doing nothing but acquiring property during his ownership or buying marathons or whatever the hell else he does with it. He’s certainly making money off the Dodgers. He can whine about the economy and building fields for kids all he wants, i’m not buying his PR campaign. Actions>Words

by kensai on Jan 14, 2009 3:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

2014 here we come

A big difference between the Yankees and Red Sox, and the Dodgers, is that the Dodgers don’t own a TV network. That’s a huge source of revenue for those clubs.

One of the conditions of Fox’s sale to McCourt was that they keep the TV rights until 2014. Starting then, McCourt can potentially add more revenue via his own network.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 14, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've seen that mentioned before...

…but i’m still pretty sure he could up the payroll if he really wanted to win. Obviously he’s making quite a deal of money with all of his plans for the stadium and for his own wealth. He’d rather not invest that in the product in the field though. Obviously.

by kensai on Jan 14, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I just think it's a stretch

to say McCourt has not invested in the product on the field when the payroll has been consistently above $110m for the last 3 years at least.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 14, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Los Angeles Is The Second Largest Market

110 is just unacceptable to me. Yeah, it sounds like a lot, but it was tied for 7th last year. 6th in 2007. 6th in 2006.

If he’s too poor to do it, he shouldn’t have bought the team in the first place Or he shouldn’t be planning some huge shopping complex thing at Dodger Stadium. Or be buying 50 million in property. Or marathons. I mean, seriously.

Then he’s going to sit there with that smug look on his face, charge 90 dollars for spring training tickets, then whine about giving money to Manny because of the economy and building fields for kids? Please.

Like I said, I don’t buy a word of his PR campaign.

by kensai on Jan 15, 2009 1:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

McCourt's History

I guessing most of you here know it, but it seems like i’m the only fan on here who’s skeptical about his ownership and what he does.

Guy couldn’t afford to buy the Dodgers even initially. He bought it highly leveraged (tons of loans).

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/21/sports/sp-dodsale21

It was so questionable that others were ready to take his place.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/82106

And he failed to buy the Red Sox and Angels before he finally got the Dodgers.

I just think a guy who struggles to buy the franchise in the first place, but now has money to buy homes since he took over the team in 2004, is little suspicious in regards to truly being dedicated to winning.

http://www.bergproperties.com/blog/dodgers-owners-frank-and-jamie-mccourt-reportedly-purchase-courteney-coxs-beachfront-mansion-in-malibu-calif/
http://blog.judysellswestside.com/2008/01/29/malibu-celebrity-real-estate-update-frank-mccourt-buys-beach-home-next-door/
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2494:dodgers-owner-frank-mccourt-buys-rights-to-la-marathon&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42

Now, he has the right to do all of this. He can do whatever he wants. His money.

All I said is that he is indeed turning some kind of profit. And that if he wanted to, he could obviously instead choose to invest something into the Dodgers. You know, instead of whining to the press about the economy and salary caps and all this other crap.

Forbes franchise valuation in 2004=399 Million
Forbes franchise valuation in 2008=694 Million

Operating income 2006=14 2007=28 2008=20

I dunno though, maybe i’m crazy or something though.

by kensai on Jan 15, 2009 2:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is starting to sound like talk radio

The $90 for spring training argument is tired. That’s the highest possible seat in the new facility. There are plenty of affordable seats as well.

Also, if you want McCourt to spend more money, shouldn’t it logically make sense that he try to bring in more revenue as well?

Anyway, it’s all supply and demand anyway. If people will buy those seats, McCourt would be crazy not to charge those prices.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 15, 2009 7:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

But I just showed that McCourt is in the black 300 million on the franchise itself and is now making operating income in the tens of millions per year.

That isn’t “sports talk radio” crap, I posted numbers that reflect the reality of the Dodgers.

The point about spring training ticket prices is about ticket prices, in general. He’ll still charge the same price, which is fine. Hell he can raise them 1000%, you’re completely right. He can do whatever he wants. The flaw for me is that he will then complain about spending money on baseball, and this is all while he spends money on himself.

That’s the flaw in logic to me.

by kensai on Jan 15, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not here to defend McCourt's words

The kids’ ball fields fiasco was embarrassing, to be sure. However, I believe we are at a stalemate. It’s hard to say the club isn’t spending enough money on the club when the payroll has been north of $110 million for 3 straight years. I believe it will be there (or very close) again, you don’t. That’s fine.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 15, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What proof is there that McCourt is pocketing a lot of the profits from the Dodgers?

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 14, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just so everyone knows, our payroll last year was almost 118.6 million dollars.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-dodgers.html

Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.

by Tango and Cash on Jan 14, 2009 7:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure if that uses average value or not

But I have 2008 as roughly $125m. 2007 was $116m

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 14, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wanted to show my work

2008 Payroll
Furcal – $13m
Martin – $500k
Ethier – $424,500
Manny – $1m (bonus for being traded)
Loney – $411k
Kemp – $406k
DeWitt – $390k
Abreu – $393k
Ardoin – $390k
D.Young – $391k
Andruw – $14.1m
Pierre – $8m
Billingsley – $415k
Kuroda – $12.3m
Kershaw – $390k
Broxton – $454k
Kuo – $392k
Wade – $390k
Schmidt – $14.5m
Hu – $390k
Repko – $487,500
Brazoban – $540k
Park – $500k
Sweeney – $725k
Bennett – $825k
Nomar – $8.5m
Lieberthal – $100k (buyout of 2008 option)
Loaiza – $6.74m ($7m minus pro-rated MLB minimum when signed by CWS)
Lowe – $10m
Mueller – $750k
Beimel – $2.045m
Kent – $9m
Maddux – $1.2m
Penny – $9.5m
Odalis – $750k (buyout of 2008 option)
Proctor – $1.115m
Saito – $2m
Seanez – $135,225 (received roughly 1/4 of salary upon being cut in spring)
Tomko – $1m (buyout of 2008 option)
Wolf – $500k (buyout of 2008 option)
Total – $125,049,225

I just realized there’s a chance we could be paying Randy Wolf for 5 or 6 consecutive years, depending on his contract structure and potential option year if he does sign with LA.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 14, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I’d suggest making that a post so we can refer back to it when we need to.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Jan 14, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As soon as Mota's numbers come in

I’ll publish an update to the payroll post, with 2007-2010 numbers

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 14, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pettit again

boy, it seems Dodger fans (at least on this page) are really turned on by Pettit. I still don’t get it. All the dialogue about how the money would fit in or not to the payroll, seems mute. The reality is he is an aging pitcher with significantly diminished skills who will not get better. If he would play for a low base with incentives, fine. But that doesn’t seem to be his case. Are you forgetting his second half performance with the Yankees last year? Why should that improve for us? He is a has been, washed up guy, who may have a few good innings left—for that you want to give up approx. 10 million for one year? Are you writing the check?

by nevernine on Jan 15, 2009 4:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm OK with signing an NBA Hall of Famer

Andy Pettitte is better than the three starting pitchers the club is reported to be interested in (Wolf, Garland, Sheets), at least for 2009. And he’ll likely have the shortest term deal of the group, so he won’t take a long term spot away from McDonald or eventually Withrow, E.Martin, or even Troncoso.

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 15, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pettit

A minority . . .

Yes, of course. But my point was that by far, he was the most wanted of those who named someone.

Eric,

I would take Wolf or Garland (though I could do without either). I think you’re not
taking into account that Pettit is on a serious decline in his skills—which would be worth the risk if he wasn’t paid 8-12 million for one year. I bet Frank really gets a chuckle out of these emails.

by nevernine on Jan 18, 2009 2:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I just think it comes down to...

Pettitte being a better pitcher for 2009 than either Wolf or Garland.

Let’s look at 2008:

FIP
Pettitte 3.71
Wolf 4.17
Garland 4.76

Pettitte had the misfortune of pitching behind an awful defense in New York. Factor in the move from the AL East to the NL West, and Pettitte’s numbers start to look better.

Pettitte’s FIP the last 3 years are:
2006: 4.13
2007: 3.87
2008: 3.71

I don’t see a decline there.

Let’s look at wins above replacement, courtesy of Fangraphs:

2008
Pettitte 4.4
Wolf 2.0
Garland 1.9

2006-2008
Pettitte 12.4
Garland 9.5
Wolf 3.4

Let’s look at durability. Here are the innings totals the last 3 years for the 3 pitchers in question:

2008
Pettitte 204.0
Garland 196.2
Wolf 190.1

2006-2008
Pettitte 633.2
Garland 616.1
Wolf 349.2

Pettitte has topped 200 innings in each of the last four seasons.

Even if Pettitte is in decline (which I don’t think he is), he will decline to a level still ahead of Garland or Wolf. Pettitte is the best AND most durable of the three pitchers. And presumably he would sign for the shortest contract, leaving future rotation spots open for McDonald, Withrow, E.Martin, etc.

We know the Dodgers are going to spend the money for a starter, and that Sheets and probably Oliver Perez are not options (club not interested in either). Why not spend it on the best one of the group in which we have interest?

-Eric

by Eric Stephen on Jan 18, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs