Jason Repko versus Xavier Paul
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 9:46 AM PST
230 comments
Based on what Ned Colletti is saying, Jason Repko appears to be staying around for the moment. With the Dodgers trying very hard to trade Juan Pierre and his contract for either a starting pitcher or a 2nd baseman the battle for who becomes the Dodger fourth outfielder looks to come down to Jason Repko or Xavier Paul. It would seem a given that Paul is the better candidate to be the fourth outfielder but is he?
They both can play all the positions of the outfield, they both have plus speed, and they both have guns for arms. So that is how they are the same. How they are different is probably why I think that Repko might be the better fit for a fourth outfielder role.
The Dodgers starting outfield is Manny, Kemp, and Andre. Of those three only one has a serious chink in their armor. That chink is that Andre does not hit left handed pitching very well. For his career Andre has a 200 point split in his OPS between facing RHP and LHP. Last year that split widened to .926 compared to .629. Part of the problem the Dodgers had last year with Pierre on the bench was that we could not use Pierre in RF to sit Andre against some LHP. The gain in moving Kemp to RF and Pierre to CF,with the left handed Pierre facing left handed pitching just wasn't worth it.
Jason Repko does many things well that you would look for in a backup outfielder. The thing he does best however is mash LHP. His slug% against LHP over the last three minor league season has been greater then .585 every year and twice it has topped .600. The Dodgers have a need for guy who can hit LHP and play RF. Repko can be that guy. What he can't do is hit RHP, so the Dodgers will need to have a guy like Minky on the bench who can handle that role.
Xavier Paul does everything as well as Repko in the field. Repko is faster on bases. What Paul does not do well is hit LHP. He hits RHP as well as Repko hits LHP but my argument is that this team needs someone to caddy for Andre. If Manny was to get hurt, then I'd bring up Paul to be the everyday LF not Repko, but for a guy off the bench Repko might be that guy.
Last year I had a hard time finding a good RHH platoon player when looking for an upgrade for the Dodgers. Shockingly they are had to find which is why you see guys like Gabe Kapler still playing. Repko is not a good player but Repko might be exactly what the Dodgers need for the way this team is built.
Of course I would rather have had Jamie Hoffmann then Repko but the Dodgers felt differently and I'm not quite sure why. There was the comment that when Hoffmann signed he was promised to be put back on the 40 man in May. I'd like to ask Ned if Hoffmann had also asked that he be left off the 40 man so he would be unprotected and a team could pick him up via the rule five if they wanted him. He or his agent had to have known that when the Dodgers released him last summer that the 40 man rosters were full so he would only get a minor league deal, so resigning with the Dodgers made sense back then when no one claimed him. But if I'm his agent I would have made part of the deal that he not only be promised to be put back on the 40 by May of 2010 but that he be left of the 40 man before the rule five draft because otherwise it makes absolutely no sense given the room the Dodgers had on the 40 man that he was not included. Just my thoughts, I could be way off base.
1 recs |
230 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nicely timed
Thanks. Good to have this. I think Paul has more potential to some day be a starter, no? Or if we could combine Repko and Paul into one player, we’d have a really good player. ;-) Or some kind of killing machine.
I still don’t understand letting Hoffmann go, per se, but I also don’t think he’s that great a player either, or not worth fretting much about. I liked his fielding better than his hitting potential.
How far from the bigs is Andy Lambo, btw? 2 yrs?
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
I refuse to guess
until he shows something in the higher levels.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I love the MinorLeagueSplits.com site
Looking at the MLEs for each guy…
MiLB career against LHP:
Repko – .264/.315/.454
Paul – .196/.231/.242
Yeah
that is the serious chink for both players and why neither can become full time players, however as underdog said you put the two together and you might have cobbled together a decent outfielder ala the Orioles and the days of Lowenstien with either Lacy or Roenicke doing the RH work.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1982.shtml
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Scratch Lacy
by the time he joined the Orioles Lowenstien was gone. He platooned in 85 with Dwyer. Dwyer was an interesting player murdered RHP but didn’t really get started at it until age 32 then had a platoon OPS over 109 six of the next seven years topping 130 three times.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
There is some truth to this as well
Some things this offseason, just aren’t going to make sense from a baseball perspective.
There is also the fact they have three 4th OF candiates
after they trade Pierre, and they made their top two choices.
I would think Hoffman would be better to take a chance on that a guy who has proven unable to become a starter, but your points above make it understandable why he would be chosen.
Also his speed is proably an asset the Dodgers like to have on the bench. Repko may be just seen as the better bench player and Xavier more valued than Hoffman.
I hate the idea of loosing anyone who can be good after watching Victorino and Werth pummel are asses ending our season two consecutive times though.
This is my favorite part
This may or may not be funny, but numerous Korean outlets don’t get the humor and are reporting about this as a real possibility.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
That is why the Dodgers are the talk of the Winter Meetings
Because every other exec is sitting around at meals whispering, “Have you heard how fucked the Dodgers are?”
You know all the other teams are laughing and pointing at Ned behind his back whispering things like, “well, at least he has that mustache”
Nice story on Steve Johnson
former Dodger (Sherrill trade to Orioles) taken by Giants today. His dad Dave is a broadcaster for MASN:
“I was disappointed he didn’t get protected (on the O’s 40-man roster). Some felt everything he does or got is because he is Dave’s son. But he is vindicated by the Giants taking him and saying ‘hey, this kid can pitch.’
“I know chances are he comes back to the Orioles and that’s great. I totally understand why he wasn’t on the 40-man. But he gets a chance to go to big league spring training. I’m going to make sure he gets me a Lincecum autograph.
“Chances are he opens the (2010) season in Bowie. If you look at the percentages, that’s the chances. But he can’t look at it that way. He’s got an opportunity go to spring training with the Giants and they will give him a look.
Just want to say
This is a fantastic, fascinating post — an angle I hadn’t considered and very well-argued. Well done.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
Consider that sentiment cosigned
Great stuff, Phil.
-sw
Growing up in the Weinman household, you learn two rules very quickly if you aspire to reach double-digits in the years-of-age category: Hate thy Knick, hate thy Yankee.
Go Celtics, Go Dodgers. -sw
by Steve Weinman on Dec 10, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
Can't say I agree with Gurnick's salaries in a few cases
but it pisses me off that there is conflicting info. From Dodgers.com:
Currently, the Dodgers have $49.2 million in salary to be paid in 2010 to six players, including only $5 million to Manny Ramirez (with $15 million deferred) and $3.6 million to Andruw Jones (deferred from last year). The other five under contract are Hiroki Kuroda ($15.1 million), Juan Pierre ($10 million), Rafael Furcal ($9.5 million) and Casey Blake ($6 million).
The problem with getting this info is that it’s hard/impossible to get from the team, and when there are conflicting reports nobody ever reports a correction. For instance, Gurnick reported last month that the Dodgers held an option for 2010 on Vicente Padilla, when that was not the case.
I was feeling good today
until you reminded me that we are paying Manny only 5 Million this year with 15 Million deferred.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
That's the thing
we are paying Manny $10m this year, with $10m (from this year) deferred
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
but...
Are we paying him anything this year from last year deferred? Sorry, just trying to throw more confusion into that contract.
by CarolinaDodger on Dec 10, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Nope
The deferred money for Manny (from both 2009-2010) is paid from 2011-2013
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
AM 570 is saying Angels Phillies front runners for Halladay.
Who would PHI have left to make that trade? And if they match up, how do the Dodgers not?
Considering they didn’t trade anybody for Lee, they have a good shot at him
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Plenty
they kept the best stuff from the Indians. Brown, Taylor, and Drabek are still available.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
and Happ
If I were Philly I would be looking to trade Happ this offseason as I don’t think he is nearly as good as his W/L and ERA were from last season.
by CarolinaDodger on Dec 10, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
Phillies would offer J.A. Happ (although not sure Toronto wants him) and after that they have Kyle Drabek who is their top pitching prospect.
Then they have two good outfielders in Dominic Brown and Michael Taylor.
After that they are pretty thin though. They have Anthony Gose who is a speedy outfielder, but probably like a Juan Pierre or Podsednick type. They have a couple decent relief prospects like Chance Chapman. They also have C Travis D’ Arnaud who was heralded and is young but hasn’t performed.
Doesn’t make sense to me since the Jays said they want good SS and C prospect in the package.
Why anyone would take Happ is beyond me as a centerpiece
I’d still insist on Brown, Taylor, and Drabek.
I hate this doom and gloom bullshit people are writing about elsewhere, as if the Dodgers are rebuilding in 2010. These same type of fans thought our pitching was “horrible” before the start of last year. It’s just pure ignorance.
by silverwidow on Dec 10, 2009 11:29 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I think the deceptiveness of it all is what makes people mad
All you hear is “same old same old” and “business as usual” – then stuff like the Wolf arb happens, and it’s clear they’re penny pinching. If the economy and the divorce are going to hamstring financially – just be honest. I’d totally understand for one. I’d just prefer some transparency.
+1
The Dodgers are not rebuilding in 2010. The team as it stands now — DeWitt at 2B, some combo of Elbert/McDonald/Stults/NRI in the rotation — will be competitive next year.
It’s after 2010, after Manny leaves, after Kuroda leaves, as Kemp and Ethier (and Martin!) start getting very expensive, that things look gloomy. ’11, ’12.
Flukes happen all the time, and I could be wrong anyway. But from this standpoint, 2010 looks like the last good bite at the apple for a while.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
Wow
I could not disagree more.
We went from offering Wolf and Hudson arbitration and adding one more solid (or take a chance on a high risk high reward type) starting pitcher to make a serious World Series challenge and best record in baseball to the Phils and Yanks, to making a run at a Division title. If there is some dramatic or across the board improvement from the young guys and we just happen to peak in October, we could make a run, but it would be like the Twins winning it all last year.
The only thing in the way from making this a great team was money and not much of it. There was very little else that had to fall in place (no Pau Gasol type trade for Holliday was required). This would have been an incredibly easy off-season for EVERY other major market team.
When you start at pretty damn near the top, you have a long way to fall and it might take some time to get there.
But you knew Wolf and Hudson were going to say no
Keeping them was never really an option, they were going to be gone. The angst is from not getting the draft picks.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Don't put too much weight on what I'm saying.
I think the Dodgers will be competitive. That doesn’t mean they’ll be the best team in baseball or the best team in the NL or have a cakewalk to the World Series. What it means is that they will have a legit chance to (a) go to the playoffs and (b) do well there. I stand by that.
I also wanted to see them improve this year. I agree that they were one piece away from a world series visit and it’s frustrating to see them tread water. But the team that is treading water is an NLCS team.
I think that regardless of any moves they make (or don’t), they have one last good shot and they should take it.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
I agree, up to a point
in that we’re not exactly treading water when we lose one of our best pitchers and our starting 2b. It’s true up to this point last year, the Dodgers were just as quiet and look how things turned out…
…yet Ned was able to luck out and get Wolf and Hudson on the cheap. It is questionable if he is going to be lucky enough to hit his inside straight 2 years running….
by Capt Obvious on Dec 10, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
my frustration is that this is the time do double down, roll the dice. The core is getting more expensive, Manny is gone next year, and we were just so close the last two years/ It’s just a shame to see them do nothing.
I like playing arm chair GM
so if it comes down to arguing the Dodgers should have made a trade or something I’m happy debating all of that stuff.
But what are you guys even saying here? Is there a trade we missed? Should we have signed somebody?
Or is this, yet again, a “the McCourt’s suck rant”? Where is this going…
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
Sign one of: Harden/Sheets/Bedard. Maybe even Lackey. Look for ways to upgrade seriously at 2B. Look for a trade that can get a big-time position player for 2011 and beyond of if possible.
It’s not rocket science to upgrade this team. Standing pat is fine but to me it’s frustrating.
The payroll should be around $125m, making even a mistake not so bad.
So you are just frustrated that the Dodgers can't spend more money
Okay, I guess we can keep saying the same thing every day until spring training.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Sure
Can’t disagree with that. The core is good enough to be a World Series team, and the idea that outside forces — the economy, the divorce — will dictate a penury* that means that they may never get there is extremely frustrating.
But they’ll still be fun to watch. I still have to think they’ll be very good next year.
*Yeah, that’s overstatement.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Well
The core hasn’t been sold off yet.
If new financing arrives for 2011 it could be all roses.
The really depressing thing about Wolf and Hudson was it will now require cash or luck to restock talent instead of developing draft picks, but it still can be made up, but as you pointed out add more cash to pay the core.
I agree with what you are saying that with cash flow problems this could be the last competitive year assuming F MC remains the owner. I doubt that will be the case though. I just hope the core survives his tenure.
Uh why?
Unless you can say the Dodgers are going to magically add half a dozen wins, it’s very much an inferior team.
I agree it's inferior
But I don’t know that I agree that it’s “very much” inferior. Wolf’s spot is a downgrade. Hudson’s spot is a downgrade. Blake will regress a bit. Every other position will be the same or improve.
And the baseline was the team with the best record in the NL. The team can afford to be not quite as good as last year’s team and still achieve its goal, which is to be competitive.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
I think we can
agree that Wolf is a downgrade, not sure I’m ready to agree that Hudson is a downgrade until we see who is playing there.
I think Kensai is jumping the boat on declaring the team six wins inferior until we know who we are going to battle with on April 1st.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
Well obviously we don't know for sure
Nobody does, but standalone, the team is about that much worse right now.
Billlingsley could win the Cy Young, Kemp could win the MVP, who knows, but it’s probably going to take something like that for this team to be a 95 win team
We don't even know Wolf's spot is a downgrade yet
It was all of two days ago that we were talking (however unfounded in reality it was at the time) the idea of swapping Paul Maholm for Juan Pierre. If something like that happens, I would argue there is little to no downgrade.
Wolf is gone, and as of today nobody has replaced him.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
Agree with both of those notes
I should have opened my comment with “Even if one takes a pessimistic view” or “Even if Colletti gets no free agents.”
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
come on, Wolf had a huge year last year. If he does it this year and next, that will be surprising, but let’s not understate what he did for us last year.
I don't think we are understating
but as good as Wolf was, Kuroda was mostly useless. Hopefully that switches in 2010. If Kuroda gets hurt again or blows, then yes this team could be in trouble since we are really counting on him now.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
so you agree that Paul Maholm is likely to duplicate what Wolf did last year? That’s the part I was disputing. Whether he is likely to duplicate what Wolf does during the life of his new contract is something else.
Oh I think he could
Just look at the x-FIP’s :)
If Wolf’s good year was a result of some good luck (which I believe is true) then why couldn’t that be true for any other pitcher on the staff.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
the nature of luck is that it’s hard to predict or replicate! I’m not talking about theoretical Randy Wolf numbers, but actual Randy Wolf numbers. The better the pitcher, the higher the probability that he replicates what Randy did last year.
yes
in the sense of what wolf ACTUALLY provided to the rotation, it’s hard to duplicate
he was essentially ace level, whether that was lucky or not is inconsequential because for the Dodgers to match that production they have to get it regardless
I'm not understating that
He had a great year. But by the same token, I am expecting much better years from Kuroda and Billingsley to compensate for the loss.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
You are forgetting the original comment
That “doom and gloom” is based in ignorance.
Really?
Doesn’t seem that ignorant to see the players lost and players gained and surmise that this team isn’t better off than if we brought the exact same players back
and
Even if you’re right and the Dodgers are now 6 wins worse than last year AND everybody else plays the same — a lot of ifs there — then the Dodgers still make the playoffs. 89-73 would have been good enough to be the wild card
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Pitching, pitching, pitching.
The Dodger team finds itself in a unique position this off-season.
Two quality starting arms added to this rotation would mark the team as a real contender … even with DeWitt at 2b.
Alas, that is not happening … “I got one more silver dollar and I’m not gonna let them catch me” …
Remember when the Dodgers got Kuroda? How ’bout Schmidt?
We all know Colletti values pitching and Torre even moreso.
The Dodgers will still be a fun team to watch … just take a miracle to make it to the WS.
Two quality starting arms added to this rotation would mark the team as a real contender
Why? The team was a contender last year with a revolving door at the #5 spot and Kuroda missing significant time. Growth from Kershaw and Billingsley along with Kuroda healthy can certainly make up for the loss of Wolf. I also think the Dodgers can get good innings from Elbert/McDonald. So I guess I could see why you feel the team needs 1 starter, but two?
I think this team is a real contender. All you need to do is get into the playoffs, its a crapshoot from there.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
Its a crap shoot
But the dice are loaded. The Yankees won by under performing in the post-season. How can they win under performing? Because they were really really good to begin with (and they got lucky). No team gets 100% to win the world series, no team will get above 75%, but when objectively judging the contenders last year, the Yanks had slightly the best team and they won.
The two quality arms is a good guess, because we needed one more in the last post-season. We are all assuming Bills will be one, we subtract Padilla and Wolf, that leaves us with the need for two more post-season starters.
Is Kuroda reliable enough? Do we expect some kid to develop into a solid starter in one year? The answer could be yes yes, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Clayton Kershaw waves hello
And its great for Yankee fans that they can spend $400MM in an offseason on Sabathia, Burnett and Tex. But that’s not really a realistic standard to compare to, is it?
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
I'm with you on Kershaw
My rotation I was looking for was
1. CK
2. CB
3. Free Agent
4. RW
5. Kuroda
Backups: Kids
CK just is an accepted fact I assume on this blog.
Billingsley bounces back and gives 200+ innings
Kuroda stays healthy and gives 180+ innings
Kershaw gives 180+ innings
Think te team needs another 200+ inning guy in here?
Elbert/McDonald
Wish things would go perfect, but likely at least one of the starters will need to have down time to recover from what ails them during the season.
So under more “normal” circumstances would Colletti be more aggressive in acquiring two more quality arms, as in hey, we’re loading up, we’re going for the gold?
He has been on record in the past saying you can’t have enough pitching, no?
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
Who are these quality arms Colletti has ignored?
Are we talking about Harden and those guys?
There’s a reason why we considered them “high risk.”
I’m just unclear who exactly we are talking about.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Lackey … no action
Wolf … no arb offer
How many other pitchers have been mentioned here over the past few days who may be available in some shape form or fashion?
Just looks like Colletti is forced to sit on his hands right now.
Definitely not alot of aggressive, postitive, planning or movement coming out from his office right now.
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
Lackey was never coming.
Wolf was never coming back.
And as Canuck said earlier, at this time last year the Dodgers had done absolutely nothing, and managed to go ahead and win 95 games.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
Like I said earlier, remember when the Dodgers went after Kuroda, Schmidt?
Nothing like that is happening. Is it wrong to think that under more normal circustances the Dodgers might be emboldened enough to undertake a more aggressive approach in regards to their starting pitching?
The Dodgers are my favorite team. It’s just frustrating to see them in this postion regarding dealing with their starters.
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
Do I need to point out how odd it is that you are remembering fondly the days when the Dodgers went aggressively for Schmidt?
Considering how well that contract worked out.
Maybe, making it rain during the winter meetings isn’t the best way for the Dodgers to go.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Point is, the Dodgers were willing to take the chance on Schmidt, at that time a few people like me felt he had logged too many innings already and was way on the other side of 30 and we were just coming out of the ped era.
Those circumstances not withstanding the Dodgers made the move.
The move didn’t work.
Alot of people liked the move when it happened.
Give the team credit for trying. They definitely put their money where their mouth was on that one.
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
I thought it was a worthwhile investment at the time. Didn’t really care if he wasn’t worth 13Million but I liked having him in the rotation headed into 2007. Just like I’d like Harden or Sheets or Bedard or Lackey headed into 2010.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
I was pro-Schmidt at the time also, but we didn’t know what the Dodgers knew then, the medical report on Schimdt’s shoulder. Almost universally we all reacted to that news later with the opinion that had we known about that medical report, we would be against taking the Schmidt risk.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
I get your point
and I understand your feeling. Yeah, I would love the payroll to go after Lackey, Harden, Sheets, Bedard. I’d love to have so much payroll they could do a Schmidt contract and still have enough bones to make the NLCS twice during his useless tenure with us.
We don’t so just like we have to settle for so much in life that is inferior we also now have to do that with the team we follow. It is what it is.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah it is.
Kershaw gets better
Billingsley gets better
Broxton gets better
Kuo stays in one piece
Elbert give 140+ innings
Loney finds power
Martin becomes a line-drive hitter
Furcal stays healthy and Blake too
DeWitt plays well … and hits
Manny performs at 80% of his career average
Ethier proves last year was no fluke
Kuroda shows he is really the" Original Robot Made of Nails"
The Bison hits 30+ home runs and hits over .300 with 30+ steals
Torre beats NY in the WS.
Bring on Spring Training.
It is what it is
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting.
That looks like how McCourt operates his businesses: very thin margin and most everything has to go perfectly. Colletti is almost the yin to that yang; he loves having depth and backup plans.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
excellent point
could be a good title for a new column
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Keith Law on the process of offering arbitration
I agree with this 100%:
The lesson here for clubs wavering on offering arbitration to a Type A free agent is that having the player accept against your wishes is not the end of the world. If the player is good and his market was hurt by the Type A designation, you should still be able to dump the salary, at the least, if not actually trade him for something of value. Atlanta’s decision to offer might not look like the right one because Soriano accepted, but it was the right call, and I’d rather take the risk of having a good player accept than throw away the chance for two high draft picks the way Dodgers did by not offering a deal to Randy Wolf.
are there any examples from previous seasons were a team heavily regretted having offered a player (FA) arbitration after he accepted it and a judgement was made? I am trying to get at a list of what the biggest possible downsides could be to offering someone arbitration. So far, I have…
1) Could win a settlement that is over your budget.
2) Could win a settlement that largely overpays the player.
3) Could accept arbitration and block a younger/better/cheaper player.
vr, Xei
Maddux said he was looking forward to FA after a number of years with the Braves. Schuerholtz offers arbitration figuring its a free pick because Scott Boras is Maddux’s agent and they always decline arbitration. Boras reads the market and realizes that the money Maddux wants won’t be out there. Maddux accepts arbitration and gets around $15-16 million from the Braves, and which also forces the Braves to trade Millwood.
Lowe accepting arbitration would have sucked
in hindsight considering how crappy his year was. Especially if you replace Wolf last year with Lowe.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not advocating
platooning Andre Ethier, simply that given the makeup of this team a RHH outfielder would be better suited then a LHH one since Andre should sit a little more often against LHP then he did last year.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
I think Tripon was right earlier
and Phil’s sentiments above about Hoffmann are correct. I went back and looked at the article when Hoffmann re-signed with the Dodgers after being DFA’d then released in September.
http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/509161.html?nav=5013
Hoffmann signed a minor league deal that covered all of 2010, with this note:
He said that he is not back on the 40-man major league roster now because that can’t happen until next May.
“That was part of the deal also,” Hoffmann said, “but hopefully I can get back on that 40-man roster as quick as possible.”
So it appears this was crafted by Hoffmann’s agent to make sure Hoffmann got a chance to play somewhere.
That said
a decision was made prior to that, in September, to keep Repko around over Hoffmann (when they needed to DFA someone). That is what I don’t agree with.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
It would be cool for Hoffman
to stick all year on the World Championship Yankee’s. Just be being picked in the rule five he gets a major league contract and now has a very good chance of earning a full world championship share even if he only plays part of the season for the team.
How about this cool scenario. He makes the team out of spring training, does a solid job until July 30th when the Yankee’s make a big trade and have to jettison someone off the the 25 man roster. That someone is Hoffman who ends up being offered back to the Dodgers who pay the 25,000 for him and stick him back in AAA. On Sept 3rd, Repko gets hurt and Hoffman who is already on the team because of the Sept callups is then designated to be the post season replacement player for Repko. The Dodgers get hot and enter the World Series against the Yankee’s. Hoffman gets the start against Pettite and wins game award by throwing Cano out at 3rd and then hitting a sac fly in 5th as the Dodgers win 3 – 2. Booyah
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Best part of that scenario for JH would be Hoffmann getting voted two full playoff shares by the two World Series teams, which in 2009 would have been worth roughly $625k.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
that was what I was going for and then forgot to cap it off with that.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
Options
I may have missed some of the “OF chat” this week, but is Repko out of options, or can he still be stashed in AAA this year? I didn’t see Phil mention on it, sorry to ask if it’s common knowledge. :)
vr, Xei
Amazingly
Repko has one option year left.
Silverwidow was the master sleuth on this effort.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
… ok, thanks. I agree with Phil’s logic as long as Ethier is the one who will take the most days off. I would go with…
If (ManRamOffDays >= EthierOffDays)
XavierPaul = 4thOutfielder;
else if (EthierOffDays > ManRamOffDays)
JasonRepko = 4thOutfielder;
I am not sure which will be the case. And my guess is that both will see time as the fourth outfielder at some point during the season.
vr, Xei
Excellent
finally something I understand
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I know this point was basically made above
but after scanning through the last day’s worth of posts at MLB Trade Rumors, I really don’t see a lot of action that I regret the Dodgers not being in on. Other than the Wolf arbitration error (which I’m mostly over at this point), I don’t see them as missing much. Being in on the Darren Oliver sweepstakes? Mike Lowell? Brandon Lyon? Bobby Crosby? Bengie Molina? Whoop-de-doo. Being inactive right now isn’t overall a bad thing. I get the feeling some people feel like they should just get busy for the sake of being busy, spend money to spend money. I’d rather they build from within and bring in a few key pieces to try to fit in somewhere.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
Yeah
I would have that they could make a play for one of Harden/Sheets/Bedard on a cheap, incentive-type deal, but after Harden got $7.5m guaranteed with an $11.5m option I knew the market was a bit skewed.
I am a little disappointed that the Dodgers can’t be active at that level, and that I would have probably given Wolf the 2-year $16m contract Olney said he would have returned for.
But you are right, the unintended (or are they intended?) consequences of being forced to rely on their own system could also pay dividends.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
“It’s incredible that you have one of the most storied franchises in all of baseball, and they’re not even involved in talk for the best free agents,” one agent said wistfully.
Making agents wistful is not the worst thing in the world.
While I agree with that
if we’re so strapped that we can’t sign a solid mid rotation starter for 2 years and 14 million, then we’re in trouble. I fear that in order to get more pitching, we’ll have to acquire someone in a deal where we deal way too much in order to get them to eat money.
Again
I agree with Eric that it would’ve been nice to make a play for Harden or Sheets or Bedard but they all come with major question marks and risks in paying a lot of money too. So even if they’re staying out of it because of financial strap it may not be a bad thing. Who else should they be making a play for right now?
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
I could get behind the opposite of going for it for one more year,
with the hold the team and develop more kids kids next year, and keep the core while F MC gets his divorce and finances in order and sells the team.
A scenario where he was a good steward for the Dodgers until he got rid of them and put the new owner in a great position. Unfortunately, the Arb decision (The scarlet letter A?) makes it look more like “how can I benefit financially short term while sacrificing long term” decision making is winning out.
+1
We all have our difference of opinions, but I really don’t like hearing things like, “We have one more crack at this in 2010,” as if the Dodgers are a college team and our best players are graduating soon. We are the LOS ANGELES DODGERS, and if the Phillies can hold on to their core, we should be able to do the same.
And I am PAINFULY aware of what the McCourts are doing and what there situation is. But if they want to pinch pennies (more so than usual) for the short term, risking our immediate chance at success in exchange for the possibility of keeping our guys together beyond the 6 year window, I’m all for it.
You may not like it, but that’s where the Dodgers are at the moment. I’m not going to make predictions about what will happen to the core — those are just fears on my part. When the club president says he doesn’t know how the divorce will affect the team for the ’11 and ’12 seasons, AND those are the seasons in which the best players in the core will be getting expensive, I think a little fear is justified.
The thing is, just because we root for the Los Angeles Dodgers does not mean that we are entitled to a winning team. Every team goes through a rebuilding period. Even the Yankees — though their “rebuilding year” is best described as “just missing the playoffs,” which is ridiculous.
The fact is, the Dodgers’ best players are “graduating soon.” Their best hitter, Manny Ramirez, will move on after ’10. The others will graduate to free agency. Even without the divorce looming over the franchise, keeping the core together might not have been possible.
Frankly, I could be wrong about ‘10. Maybe the Dodgers do see a way to keep the band together down the road, and what we’re seeing now is part of that long-term plan. But only time will prove that point of view to be accurate — I just don’t think the Dodger management has earned any benefit of the doubt. I believe that they have followed and continue to follow a “live for today” strategy and — barring unforseen circumstances or fluke years — that bodes ill for ‘11/’12.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
I’m just saying I’m not accepting this. :) I just hope the McCourts leave town before “the kids” do. We’ll see.
Dodger Love
For the players on the field*
*does not include the bus going over the cliff that has become team ownership
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
Line from Gurnick that cracked me up
in his winter meetings review:
Goals accomplished: They didn’t spend any money. And Colletti said the three days of meetings held with his advisers were constructive
I don't believe for a moment
that Randy Wolf (and his agent), with a 3yr/$29M deal in hand, would give up $13M – about 45% of his deal! – in guaranteed money to sign a 2/16 deal with L.A. and hope he can make that money back as an FA starting with his age 35 season. I know LH starters sometimes last a lot longer in the majors than one might expect, but Wolf is a guy who has struggled with injuries numerous times in his career and understands how precarious health can be for a pitcher. I call BS on Olney and/or Olney’s source(s).
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Timing is the key
I think 2/$16m might have gotten it done up through the time when the Dodgers had to offer arbitration.
Once the arb wasn’t offered, that window closed.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
ECR
home boy who has tried very hard to stay in SoCal the last three years. I could actually see someone like Wolf doing that since he did seem to really enjoy being a Dodger and doesn’t live a crazy lifestyle. He probably already knows he’s set for life and might be able to put aside the ego which is all the money issue might be at this point.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
$13M is one hell of a hometown discount. How many of our combined net worths does it take to equal that.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
How many of us have already
earned $40 Million with another 16 Million being banked in the next two years.
1999 Philadelphia Phillies $200,000
2000 Philadelphia Phillies $240,000
2001 Philadelphia Phillies $365,000
2002 Philadelphia Phillies $450,000
2003 Philadelphia Phillies $2,375,000
2004 Philadelphia Phillies $4,375,000
2005 Philadelphia Phillies $6,625,000
2006 Philadelphia Phillies $9,125,000
2007 Los Angeles Dodgers $7,477,969
2008 San Diego Padres $4,750,000
2009 Los Angeles Dodgers $4,956,237
Career (may be incomplete) $40,939,206
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
People who have lots of money need lots more money. Ref: the McCourts. $13M goes a long way toward accustomed-lifestyle maintenance.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Not always
as I said he does not live a lavish lifestyle. He doesn’t have multiple children from multiple woman to support, his gold necklaces are made of seashells, he invests with the Motley Fool.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I don't think it is a straight $13m difference
Before December 1, Dodgers probably could have signed Randy Wolf to a 2/$16m contract.
After December 1, with no arbitration offered, Wolf has more suitors, price goes up, allows the Brewer offer to get as high as it did (3/$29.75m).
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
Would be interesting to note
just how much more Randy got because no draft picks were involved.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
More catcher news
Rockies sign Chris Iannetta through his arb years — 3 years, a little over $8m
Will be 27 in 2010, just like Martin.
103 career OPS+, just like Martin.
Under club control through 2012, just like Martin
Will make about one third of what Martin makes from 2010-2012 :(
I’m sure I could find a way to use the $$$ savings for a suitable backup. :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
My point is that is a reason why Martin will be paid more. Otherwise the arb case is too easy for Ng.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Once Ng
beats Martin in this years arbitration you can bet he will not be so gung ho to catch every game, because she is going to nail him on performance/productivity while his agent will counter with games players. Kim will win, Martin will realize the error of his ways and not demand to play so much. Win Win
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
The Kendall man can. Oh wait, scratch that example! :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
Tim Dierkes (of MLB Trade Rumors) chimed in
Getting Iannetta’s arb years for $8MM is a nice deal. Snyder got $9.6MM, Doumit $10.7MM
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
Okay
so it has been a little cold in LA this week but compared to the rest of the nation if we complain about our cold it would be Jessica Simpson complaining about her boobs only in comparison to Dolly Parton. So Mary Leadman over at Dodger Thoughts was complaining about his -20 day in Chicago and I told him to make sure to cover his extremities like his ears/hands/feet and for fun threw in that he needed a dick warmer.
Then I wondered what exactly would you find if you googled dick warmer and while this is not appropriate for DT I was laughing my ass off while reading this.
http://harlemrunner.blogspot.com/2008/01/running-in-sub-zero-weather-my.html
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I had to pause when I got to the concept of
dick frostbite
Yow. Very funny article.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Yeah, I don't think so
Didn’t Ned say that he didn’t see the point in such a trade?
Maybe that was lip service, but that’s lip service I can believe in.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
Of course he is - that's not the point
Dodgers have two rotation spots to fill. If they upgrade Billingsley to Verlander, they give up prospects and still have two rotation spots to fill.
Upgrade may or may not be worth the prospects and may also make it tougher to fill the other two spots.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
No point
for the tigers, maybe cheaper, idk. I guess I would do this trade, but it seems like that would make no sense for at least 1 side (tigers).
Probly minor leaguers if anything.
Dee Gordon, Ethan Martin, Josh Linblom, and 2 low prospects for Verlander? Too much?
Huddling with Dombrowski
Wouldn’t it more likely have to do with Detroit’s alleged interest in JP? In that case, we are getting back someone like Guillen, Bonderman, Robertson or Willis.
I can stomach all of those guys except Willis.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah if it's something involving Pierre and Detroit
it’d have to be one of those guys, not Verlander. Who would fetch more along the lines of a top prospect + top 25 man roster player.
I’d actually take Bonderman as a still young guy with potential to rebound and excel. Be perfectly fine with that.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
I would be all over that too
Bonderman only has one year left on his deal, so sending Pierre and (let’s keep it consistent with the Maholm idea) Brent Leach for Bonderman would be a great result.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
I would do the opposite of throwing a chair across the room if that happened :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
I suppose it would probably be letting a baby punch me in the face!
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
I can't comment on the face but
I have been occasionally punched in the nads by an unrepentant Spawn of Kavula.
It’s not a 90-mph fastball by any means, but I wasn’t too happy.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
I have 13 nieces/nephews, and have been struck in a similar fashion many times (I have never struck any in the face, at least not for retaliation that is)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
What happens if on the same day
the Dodgers trade Travis Schlicthing to the Mets for Bengie Molina?
Do you and the baby just come to blows?
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
It’s pretty much the end of Rocky III between Rocky and Apollo.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
RE: Bonderman
Talk about another high risk/high reward guy. The dude has posted very solid numbers when he was healthy, and when unhealthy (2008 and 2009) the numbers were dreadful in limited appearances.
Maholm is a more steady, above average pitcher. But Bonderman can be a stud when healthy.
And both are 27, yet (I think) this is the last year on Bonderman’s deal while the Dodgers would have Maholm for a few more years.
But with Bonderman’s injury history, I can’t see the Dodgers throwing too much into the pot with JP.
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
I'm going with no way in hell on that one
That was from yesterday, from numerous aggregator type tweets, followed by this tweet by a few of the same:
#tigers #MLB was unable to collaberate the Verlander rumor. Spoke to four people, one said maybe #dodgers other hadn’t heard anything
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Should I trust someone who doesn’t know the difference between “collaberate” (sic) and corroborate?
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Same source that floated the “rumor” so yes :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
Could this be possible???
Why would the Tigers even consider it after the season he put up? Then again, who gives a crap, lets get that shit done without giving up Kershaw, Kemp, Ethier, Broxton, Billingsley, or Withrow.
jonahkeri
#Rays did trade for a C, Shoppach. No one better available. Re: $5M RP instead of $7M, that’s why they only had to deal Chavez. @BtB_Sky
perhaps this whole Repko thing is fallout from Jayson Werth?
I mean, people are groaning that we didn’t keep him for the cheap price of $875,000, but from what I remember about the whole thing (admittedly, not much- and that’s the point), people kind of shrugged when the Dodgers didn’t retain him. Repko was supposed to be promising when he first came up, but injuries prevented him from ever becoming anything with the Dodgers. Sound familiar?
Completely different
Werth had major league success with the Dodgers; Repko did not. Werth was two years younger, and more importantly Werth’s injuries were much more recent (when the Dodgers non-tendered him, he hadn’t played in over a year).
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
Here's a link to
Hoffmann’s awesome play in Wrigley Field earlier this season (diving catch & throw)
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4817043
3 things I'll always remember about Jamie Hoffman
1) that awesome play
2) that he looked like he had stage fright in his first ML at bat, when he had a chance at a walk-off. (was at that game- it still had a good ending, with a JP walk-off walk)
3) that he homered on the VERY NEXT AT BAT the next day- only for the Dodgers to ultimately lose. (I couldn’t help thinking what a great story that would have been had he done that one at bat earlier.)
I was at the home run game
Got to talking with the guys in the next seat. “Who’s Hoffmann?” they asked. I told them about the previous evening. “All he had to do was lift the ball to the outfield for a sac fly, but he struck out,” I said. “But he’ll be OK.”
Then he hit the home run.
Next time up, I said, “Hoffmann. Huh. WHAT HAVE YA DONE FOR ME LATELY?”
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
I'm a yeller.
…but I hope only for comic effect.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
You can tell that we are in trouble when Jason Repko and his place on the team is one of the main topics to talk about in the off season.
Any other third stringers we forgot about who could now make the team?
In trouble, Or just not
making moves early in the winter. Just like last year.
I’d rather there be no news than “Dodgers sign Jason Schmidt” type deals announced.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
It's weird though
because while I would argue the decision to keep Repko over Hoffmann is the wrong one, its also the more expensive one (I think.) Repko is arbitration eligible, whilst Hoffmann is not. The cheaper route would have been to put the Hoff on the 40 man and non-tender Repko (assuming Hoffmann’s contract allowed for that.)
On this one, it was definitely a baseball decision (even if I think it was the wrong baseball decision.)
by Michael White on Dec 10, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
That leaves TV
littered with too many dicks on the dancefloor. :-(
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
Stults staying put, for now
from Dylan Hernandez:
Dodgers turned down an offer from a Japanese club to purchase Eric Stults’ contract
If Hofffmann doesn ‘t make the Yankees 25-man roster out of ST, he must be offered back to the Dodgers. Because he is now on the Yankees 40-man roster per the rules of the Rule 5 draft, I assume (because I can’t find a copy of the Professional Baseball Agreement online) the Dodgers must put him on their 40-man roster if they accept him back. Therefore, if LA wants him back, they have to have a spot for him. Of course, returning either of the Rule 5 picks they drafted would create that space. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hoffmann back in the Dodger fold as March winds to a close, unless the Yanks suffer an OF injury of significance.
I read that after the season starts a Rule 5 pick has to clear waivers before being offered back to the original team, but I think it’s the case that before the season starts waivers do not apply. Anyone know if I am right?
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
I believe before the season he would still have to clear waivers but I can’t say for sure.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
I read that after the season starts a Rule 5 pick has to clear waivers before being offered back to the original team, but I think it’s the case that before the season starts waivers do not apply. Anyone know if I am right?
He has to clear waivers if the original team refuses to buy him back. If he goes unclaimed, they (2nd team) gets to keep him in their minors.
waivers happen first. Any claiming team are subject to the same restrictions, in that they also have to keep the Rule 5 player on their 25-man roster.
After he clears waivers is when he must be offered back to the original team.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions
So you’re saying if we DFA Monasterios, the Phillies DO NOT have priority and must wait until all teams have a chance to claim him?
So the unnamed Dodger exec quoted in the NY Post is an idiot. (Some posted this quote earlier):
One Dodger executive said, "I’m glad it is them because we thought we would lose him to a bad team." Translation: The Dodgers do not think a team as good as the Yankees will be able to keep Hoffmann on their 25-man roster all year, and he will have to be offered back to Los Angeles at some point.The bad team that the exec was afraid of can still claim Hoffmann subject to Rule 5 restrictions anyway, before he is offered back to LA.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
never mind
reading comprehension fail. I didn’t realize worse teams could still claim Hoffman. But maybe that’s just not really done?
Sort of
Hoffmann did already clear waivers once (in September), so it’s not unlikely that he would clear waivers again, especially during the season when most 40-man rosters are nearly full (as opposed to now before many FA are signed).
It is better for Hoffmann to go to a team that he is most likely not to stick with for the whole year, because the act of clearing waivers is the least of the two obstacles, the larger one being being unwanted by the new team anyway.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
Example is Luis Perdomo
pitcher in the Cards system, selected by Giants in 2008 Rule 5 draft.
The Giants put him on waivers and he was claimed by the Padres.
Quoth Paul DePodesta:
Because Luis was a Rule 5 selection back in December, we will be under the same Rule 5 restrictions as if we had selected him in that draft – we cannot send him to the minors without him passing through waivers and being offered back to the Cardinals for $25,000.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
Another example is Eduardo Morlan
in Rays system, drafted by Brewers in 2008 Rule 5 draft.
Brewers DFA’d Morlan in March. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
As a Rule 5 pick, Morlan would have had to have been kept all season or offered back. First, he was placed on waivers and cleared. Then, Tampa Bay had the option to take him back or work out a deal for him.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
Reading through this mini-thread, need a point clarified
Is there any difference between letting a Rule 5 pick go before opening day and after the season starts? Does the player have to clear waivers at one time but not another?
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 10, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
For instance, in the two examples I used, Morlan was in spring training, and Perdomo was as the season started.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions
So the unnamed Dodger exec quoted in the NY Post is an idiot. (Some posted this quote earlier):
One Dodger executive said, "I’m glad it is them because we thought we would lose him to a bad team." Translation: The Dodgers do not think a team as good as the Yankees will be able to keep Hoffmann on their 25-man roster all year, and he will have to be offered back to Los Angeles at some point.The bad team that the exec was afraid of can still claim Hoffmann subject to Rule 5 restrictions anyway, before he is offered back to LA.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
when it gets this complicated
are you a Dodgers fan, or just someone with OCD :) I can’t get immunity, I read and considered every word of your post :)
If it makes anyone feel better
Carlos Monasterios is highly marketable for cerea
l
Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Dec 10, 2009 5:02 PM PST reply actions
There were no good mug shots of Carlos
Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.
by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Dec 10, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions
You know pickings are slim
or your team is desperate for relief help, when you read this (in MLB Trade Rumors): “The Phillies are moving on to other bullpen options, now that the Astros have signed Brandon Lyon.”
Also the Rays get Soriano for Jesse Chavez. Now, how is that win for the Braves? Contract savings I guess?
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
I read something on Fangraphs about it a couple days ago
They said on there it was pretty good value.
I am in an argument with a Yankee fan about Granderson
He thinks it was a terrible move and that Melky would have done the same exact job as Granderson…I could not believe it.
I’ve since told him that Granderson has a career .272/.344/.484 career line to Melky’s .269/.331/.385 line, and that Granderson has a career 22.5 UZR to Melky’s -8.7.
He has still not been convinced that Granderson is a monster upgrade of the very average-at-best Melky Cabrera.
He also believes Teixeira had a great year defensively with his -3.7 UZR, and that despite Fangraphs.com saying Brett Gardner had the 38th best arm in 09 and 11th best over the last 2 seasons, that Gardner’s arm sucks.
What’s worse is I just cannot stop arguing with him…I don’t know why.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
NL West Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
San Diego
|
76 | 56 | .575 | 0 | Lost 7 |
|
San Francisco
|
74 | 60 | .552 | 3 | Won 2 |
|
Colorado
|
69 | 63 | .522 | 7 | Lost 2 |
|
Los Angeles
|
68 | 66 | .507 | 9 | Lost 2 |
|
Arizona
|
55 | 79 | .410 | 22 | Won 3 |
(updated 9.2.2010 at 3:17 AM PDT)
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.
