Kuroda Likely To Join Rotation, Decision To Come Wednesday
by Eric Stephen on Oct 13, 2009 8:19 PM PDT
in News
82 comments
The Dodgers' pitching rotation for the NLCS is beginning to take form and, while not yet announced, the starting four while likely include Hiroki Kuroda, who missed his final start of the regular season and the NLDS because of a small disk herniation in his cervical spine.
Kuroda threw a simulated game Tuesday at the club's spring training facility in Glendale, Arizona, under the watchful eye of manager Joe Torre, among others. He threw about 50 pitches over five innings, according to Torre. Kuroda also threw 25 pitches in a bullpen session, for a total of 75 pitches on the day. Torre wouldn't commit to naming his rotation, but he was gushing in his praise of Kuroda, calling his command today "surprisingly good." Torre noted that Kuroda's experience in big games worked to his favor:
The ability he had last year to pitch the way he did in the postseason, and even late in the season in important games, is certainly a factor.
If Kuroda joins the rotation, he would likely have to take the spot of Chad Billingsley or Vicente Padilla, as Randy Wolf and Clayton Kershaw seem pretty entrenched at the top of the rotation. Padilla, who pitched seven shutout innings in his postseason debut on Saturday, isn't going anywhere, according to GM Ned Colletti:
Padilla's going to be a starter in the LCS. When exactly, we're still sorting through, but his performance the other night was one of the best performances we've seen all year. He deserves the opportunity to keep starting, and he'll keep starting for us.
Torre said a decision won't be announced until Wednesday, after how Kuroda feels physically, and after Torre gets a chance to talk to the pitchers in question. NLCS rosters are due Thursday.
0 recs |
82 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
wolf
kershaw
kuroda
padilla
wolf
kershaw
kuroda or padilla depending on whether kuroda neck is feeling fine…
by matthewmafa on Oct 13, 2009 8:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it makes me a little sad that bills isn’t gonna be pitching..
by DannyDodger on Oct 13, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Padilla
I think the Dodgers are going to exercise the option on Padilla’s contract and bring him back for 2010 at a salary of $12 million. And you know what? That would be a good idea.
by CanuckDodger on Oct 13, 2009 8:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers have no option on Padilla.
When the Texas released Padilla, they automatically declined Padilla’s option.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if the Dodgers had a $12 million option, he's not worth $12 million.
Do you seriously think Padilla actually can throw 95-96 on a regular basis? I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s suspended next year for a PED. Where the hell was this speed in Texas for instance?
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless Of What He is Worth
The Dodgers have always been willing to over-pay in dollars in order to get the shortest possible length on a deal, and I agree with that philosophy. Better a Padilla at $12 million for one year than a slightly better pitcher at $10 million for five years.
by CanuckDodger on Oct 13, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they don't have to pay Padilla $12 million.
Whatever his worth on the open market, $1 million, $2 million, maybe as high as $5 million, its nowhere near what his option is.
No point of throwing wasted money at Padilla like this. Especially when every young Dodgers seems to be getting an arbitration raise.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your logic just might apply, but with Garland, whom they might bring back for $10m next year. Although at this point I’d put those chances at about 30-35% or so.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 13, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Padilla has been worth $4M, $7M, $9M the last three years ($9M this year). Being around a league average (2 WAR) pitcher, he is worth no more than $10M per year in a “good economy”. I would think he’d be lucky to get more than $7M per year as a FA next year.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 13, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
That was not stated in the reports I read when we picked him up. The option was mentioned in all the reports but I don’t recall any writer saying it automatically died with the release.
by CanuckDodger on Oct 13, 2009 8:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Garland has a mutual option for $10 million. If the Dodgers decline, they owe him $2.5m. If Garland declines, they owe him $1 million. Either buyout would be paid by AZ, as part of their trade.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 13, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would decline
and sign him to a one-year worth around $1.5-2.5 million. He’s getting a hefty raise from the option, so I think it would be all the same to him.
"Who would win: Coach Ditka versus a hurricane? The name of the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka"
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Oct 13, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that's if all plan-A's fail
"Who would win: Coach Ditka versus a hurricane? The name of the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka"
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Oct 13, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garland? There's some sap on the market that will give him $5 million.
I’m always surprised that a guy can pull down major change just on rep alone.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why does Garland always get disrespected like this. A quick look at his WAR the past five years shows…
2005: 3.7 WAR (worth $12.7M)
2006: 3.9 WAR (worth $14.5M)
2007: 3.6 WAR (worth $14.9M)
2008: 1.9 WAR (worth $8.8M)
2009: 2.4 WAR (worth $10.6M)
Just because he doesn’t have a sexy K/9 rate, the guy is a very useful pitcher.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 13, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the WAR to dollars ratios are outdated.
I’ve been told that a FA gets 4:1 to what his production actually is. But we seen guys take ‘bargain’ deals in 2008, including Garland, and we’ll see the same in 2009.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is the guy is much more than a “sap”. He’s put up better than league average numbers in four of the last five seasons, including the current season.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 13, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When is the last time the Dodgers paid major money for a guy to produce 'below leauge average' though?
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, not sure where this fits in to the conversation. Who is this “imaginary” person that the Dodgers are paying major money to?
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 13, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not Garland. :)
This year it was Wolf, the Dodgers didn’t bother to bring in a FA starting pitcher in 08. In 07, they went splurging on Schimdt, Wolf, and traded for Esteban Loaiza.
I’d argue that out of all the potential moves, only Loaiza did the Dodgers think was going to give them average or below average work. The Dodgers try to sign guys with higher upside than Garland, and I can’t see them changing that approach.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And really, if every team tried to sign their FA to WAR dollar amounts, every team payroll would be around 200 million
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not following the logic there.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 13, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The WAR dollar conversions are a fun little sideshow,
But to take it seriously, you have to believe that FAs today are paid so low beyond what they truly produce for teams when there is studies show that FAs are actually paid more than they typically would since teams spend the savings they make on rookie and pre-arbitration players on Free Agents.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t see how that or your previous post fits in. But I’m going to sleep now.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 13, 2009 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, a ton of players are “worth” money in the mid teens to mid twenties of millions of dollars according to WAR. That just isn’t right.
by Ivdown on Oct 14, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, with the added caveat that that is how much they are worth if they were a free agent. Most players are NOT free agents. Of course these days you have to make adjustments for the swine economy.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 14, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
He is useful.
It just shows how good this pitching staff is.
by Dodger Dude on Oct 14, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh? It wouldn’t be all the same to him. He gets the option buyout no matter what, and then he’d be a free agent, where he will almost certainly sign for much more than $1.5-$2.5m.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 13, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
then in that case, release him.
"Who would win: Coach Ditka versus a hurricane? The name of the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka"
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Oct 13, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its a procedural move basically.
If a team who picks up a released player had to pick up any salary, guaranteed or otherwise from his former team, you’d never see a released player play again until the original contract was over.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once Padilla was released (after he cleared waivers during the 10-day DFA period), the 2010 option died. The Rangers still owe him the buyout however, much like we did to Esteban Loaiza for his 2009 option buyout when he was released in 2008.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 13, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha…except that was just a straight option decline, rather than a release.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 13, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dammit
I was gonna post that.
"Who would win: Coach Ditka versus a hurricane? The name of the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka"
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Oct 13, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was released in all of our hearts. :)
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which was faster, his release or his “release”?
by David Young on Oct 13, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Speaking of options, Mark Hudson is going to decline his part of a mutual $12 million option with the Braves.
And the Braves say they want to pick it up.
What the heck is Hudson thinking!?!?!?
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 8:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean Tim
"Who would win: Coach Ditka versus a hurricane? The name of the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka"
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Oct 13, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're on the Mark, Mulder!
Ew, why do I even know that?
"Who would win: Coach Ditka versus a hurricane? The name of the hurricane is Hurricane Ditka"
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Oct 13, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's getting up in the years isn't he?
he probably wants to win a championship, and still could command a nice short term deal.
by TheNewbster on Oct 13, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He turned 34 in July
Tough spot for him and the Braves. Did he show enough in seven starts to show he’s back? If both parties decline, can he get a multi-year offer? But next year he would be a 35-year old FA – a bit long in the tooth. That is an interesting decision to make on both parties part, but I imagine for only a one-year commitment, the Braves should exercise his option – he could be a stud again.
by David Young on Oct 13, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mark Hudson
AKA Kate Hudson’s uncle. Kate’s daddy is the guy in the middle.
by David Young on Oct 13, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually thought those guys were funny once upon a time
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 14, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOS ANGELES — Joe Torre had Clayton Kershaw prepared to start a possible Game 5 of the National League Division Series against the Cardinals instead of Randy Wolf, but didn’t talk about it.
There are strong indications that Torre will have the 21-year-old Kershaw start Game 1 of the NL Championship Series, too, and as a bonus, Torre’s probably getting Hiroki Kuroda back after Kuroda missed the first round of the playoffs.
by Tripon on Oct 13, 2009 9:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kershaw starting games 1 and 5???
Wow, I guess he thinks either Kershaw could try and put them away if they have a 3-1 lead going into game 5, or that Wolf would be better served pitching in game 6 with a 3-2 lead or trying to save the series down 2-3.
by Ivdown on Oct 14, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To have Bills in the Pen
With already the best pen in baseball.
Wow.
I can not see this not turning out well.
by Dodger Dude on Oct 13, 2009 9:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess
But still, the guy was meant to be a starter, and a damn good one at that. While I have no clue exactly wtheck happened in the second half that witnessed Mr. Hyde take over Dr. Jekyll, it would be assumed that he has to get out of that pen and pitch a game this October…I don’t see a situation other than an actual start that Bills would pitch. Long relief I guess, but our bullpen was so deep to begin with that we didn’t need another long reliever there aside from Weaver (never hurts i guess). There’s not one guy in the pen that wouldn’t be trusted in a high pressure situation pretty much (unless Mota is in the pen? hahaha); that’s why our pen was so good. Hence at that point, I doubt it’d happen, but I’d perhaps try:
1. Bills
2. Kershaw
3. Wolf
4. Kuroda
5. Padilla
6. Kershaw
7. Wolf
This way you get Kershaw and Wolf to not only go twice, but end to end the series cause I wouldn’t want anyone else to end it than Kershaw/Wolf
by TheNewbster on Oct 14, 2009 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unlikely
But I REALLY like that idea. It also works because if Bills deals in game 1 he could go in game 4 or 5 as well. But like you said, it’s doubtful.
by UCLAClass82 on Oct 14, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we want to win game 1
its a big game in the series… and bills is not the best option for that game…
by matthewmafa on Oct 14, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the odds the first two games were…
Option 1:
Hamels vs Wolf (LAN WE 55.0%)
Happ vs Kershaw (LAN WE 65.45%)
Option 2:
Hamels vs Kershaw (LAN WE 60.0%)
Happ vs Wolf (LAN WE 60.0%)
Which would you choose? Option 1 or Option 2. Also keep in mind that the Game #1 pitcher most likely pitches Game #5, and the Game #2 pitcher most likely pitches Game #6.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 14, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hamels in my opinion is going to continue his domination vs us
so i want a guy facing him who will also dominate which is kershaw…
our bullpen can help randy out after we beat up HAPP
by matthewmafa on Oct 14, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think
it would matter than, as long as we have a chance to win (in this case, a better than 50%), either works. but again, i would prefer bills get the start game one. this series is probably going 6/7. no one really thinks so far that it’ll be one sided like last year, nor does anyone thing Philly will be the team, if there is one, to end it earlier (5 games). Hence, set up the rotation so we get the 6/7 games with wolf/kershaw, and make bills pitch. I think bills is rested and ready. All that is left is to BELIEVE. :)
by TheNewbster on Oct 14, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Option 1
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 14, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the best option
for that game, probably not, but in the end, this is a 7 games series, so one game is one game. it might change some approaches and dynamics, but in the end, we need to play to win a series, not just a game. i would like to see us try to maximize our chances for a series.
to put it in perspective. it’s not as if Kuroda or Padilla don’t garner any questions still anyhow. if you recognize that neither of those 2 are locks anyhow, why not set up so Bills gets a shot; if he doesn’t come through (regardless of if we end up winning or not) then fine, we have 2 other options anyhow. but without question, of Bills, Kuroda, and Padilla, Bills has the most talent, try using it; and also get your ideal set up for the 7 game series.
by TheNewbster on Oct 14, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are about to play the 1st game of the NLCS
and we are bothering to debate the 2010 rotation now? Can’t that wait two more weeks?
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 14, 2009 8:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Massive fail on the game time for Game 2
1 pm? Really? Who cares if you even have it at 7 pst – it’s friday so having it start late on the E.C. doesn’t matter.
by oshea2002 on Oct 14, 2009 9:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Luckily for me, friday is my day off. And best of all the parking in my driveway is free.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Oct 14, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah this schedule really bothers me too.
I don’t see how it maximizes ratings for baseball at all. Los Angeles and Philadelphia put together make a pretty formidable audience and to cut the Los Angeles market out, I just don’t get it.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 14, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When the game finally gets played those at the game will enjoy a NLCS day game but with such short notice it plays hell for those trying to schedule it.
by meercatjohn on Oct 14, 2009 9:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rain in October
do any of you Weather nerds know if that bodes well for the winter or is it simply an anomaly that has had no effect on amount of rainfall during the winter? My www.weather-reference.com website does not appear to be responding.
by meercatjohn on Oct 14, 2009 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
After the rain today
we should have gorgeous weather for Thursday/Friday with the valley hitting the 90’s on Friday, which means Dodger Stadium should be perfect.
by meercatjohn on Oct 14, 2009 9:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Game time
If everyone could just remember this for next year, that would be great. I’m guilty of it too, since I completely spaced thinking Friday was a night game. But, it would be nice to not see people so shocked at the game times next season.
I do agree the teams could have done a better job at least suggesting a possibility of a day game in advertising the tickets for sale (I have no idea if this was done, as I was not the one who actually bought the seats).
At any rate, there is a new post on the front page:
http://www.truebluela.com/2009/10/14/1084389/a-brief-look-at-the-phillies
by Eric Stephen on Oct 14, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs were all in prime time in LA
I’m pretty sure all the Phillie games in LA were night games.
I think you pretty much have to go back to 80s for a weekday playoff game before this.
by Dodger Dude on Oct 14, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Game 2 of the NLCS started at roughly the same time in 2008 (1:35 PT) as 2009 (1:07 PT), it was just in Philly.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 15, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Game 3 of the ALCS in 2008 (the Monday game) started at 1:39pm PT. Game 3 of the 2009 ALCS is scheduled for 1:07pm.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 15, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Final roster prediction
Starters:
1. Kershaw
2. Wolf
3. Padilla
4. Kuroda (Game 7 starter)
Bullpen:
1. Broxton
2. Sherrill
3. Kuo
4. Belisario
5. Elbert
6. Weaver
7. Billingsley (long man)
Cut: Troncoso, Garland
Same hitters as NLDS.
by silverwidow on Oct 14, 2009 9:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Game 1, rain and ground ball pitchers ...
Could the conditions of the field on Thursday have an influence on who starts? I would think that the field is still going to be wet, meaning that someone who gets more ground balls (Kuroda, but he won’t be ready) might be a better option than someone who gets a lot of fly balls (Kershaw). Just curious.
And, yeah, for those of use who bought tickets last year (all night games, I guess since the Yankees weren’t in it, we were the marquee attraction), this year’s scheduling has been unsettling. I’m probably going to try and unload our Friday afternoon tickets, since my wife is out of vacation time, and the kids will still be in school. I’ll probably keep one and find some co-workers to go.
by TopDeckTrueBlue on Oct 14, 2009 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The infield was likely tarped and it’s going to be sunny all day tomorrow. No big deal here.
by silverwidow on Oct 14, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, hadn’t thought of that. Guess that’s why I’m not a manager. :)
by TopDeckTrueBlue on Oct 14, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
