Duck Talk
by Phil Gurnee on Feb 10, 2010 6:37 PM PST
in Duck Talk
Email
Print
via scrapetv.com
This column is for David Young who for some reason enjoys these little forays off the yellow brick road, as he goes under the knife tomorrow. Wish him well, anyone brave enough to undergo surgery in our hospitals is brave man. Make sure the surgery team does the check list. Seriously
For some of his past interviews you can check out the Duck Talk Section where we ask the questions we want to ask and try to see through the cliche responses we normally get. For those of you new to Duck Talk, this is a complete fabrication based on interviews within my troubled mind.
Spring is about to start, let's get started with asking NC how he went about building the team
Aflac Duck: You had your eye on Wang but you pulled out, how come?
NC:Since I already had a Johnson I felt I didn't need a Wang. I'm just hoping to find Billingsley some balls.
Aflac Duck: Okay now that we have the obligatory low denominator humor out of the way lets take a look at this team. Looks like the same group that choked in Philly minus the best pitcher Wolf, and the All-Star Hudson. Spin it for me NC spin it.
NC: Kershaw, Kuroda, and Billingsley are as good as any threesome in baseball
Aflac Duck: Really? You mean the guy who Torre didn't feel was good enough to even start in the playoffs? The guy who did get to pitch in playoffs and was torched to the tune of six earned runs in one inning? The southpaw who came unglued in game one against the Phillies? Those are the guys you are counting on to defeat the Phillies? No wonder you signed Padilla.
NC: You can't just look at the playoffs, only maroons do that. Billingsley was an all-star last year until he fell into some bad habits. He has as good of stuff as anyone in baseball and we expect him to bounce back.
Aflac Duck: Why? Why weren't his bad habits fixed at the time he was exhibiting them? Isn't that what the video is for? The pitching coach? The catcher? Why is a winter of rest going to fix what ailed him in the 2nd half? Isn't that just wish-casting?
NC: No, the reality is that he got hurt last winter, wasn't able to work out, so lack of conditioning may have contributed to his bad mechanics in the 2nd half?
Aflac Duck: I keep hearing he had some flaws, so your saying those flaws would not manifest themselves until the 5th or 6th inning after he sailed through the first four because of conditioning?
NC:Yes
Aflac Duck: How much faith do you have that Padilla can pitch a whole year like he did for the Dodgers last summer?
NC: 4 Million Dollars worth
Aflac Duck: Are Dodger players allowed to bring guns into the clubhouse?
NC: No
Aflac Duck: When is Loney going to learn how to hit at home?
NC: I don't know but if we trade him and he comes into Dodger Stadium and torches us, I'm going to be one pissed off MF. It is embarrassing when your 1st baseman can't hit a home run in his home park.
Aflac Duck: Is Belliard really so rotund that you needed to put a weight clause into his contract?
NC:He was so round in the Winter League he could have rolled his way to Camelback after floating over from the Gulf of Mexico. He was so round that if he showed up at Dodger Stadium they'd mistake him for a beach ball and start batting him around.
Aflac Duck: Will the Dodger fans ever see pre all-star 2008 Martin again? Or has the bad Kendall clone firmly ensconced himself into the Martin being?
NC:Man I hope so, no one expected him to go from the good Kendall to the bad Kendall just because he had to catch most of the all-star game.
Aflac Duck: If you had to pick between Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier which one would you pick?
NC:Neither, I'd take Juan Pierre
Aflac Duck: Speaking of your biggest mistake, how humbling was it to ask Frank to approve the deal that sent Juan away?
NC:It was easy compared to asking him to eat all of Andruw's contract. As long as we only have to eat one lousy contract per winter Frank is okay with it.
Aflac Duck: This is the first spring in three years we don't have to hear about how Jason Schmidt is going to earn his money. You must be breathing a sigh of relief now that you have Schmidt, Jones, and Pierre off the payroll. Is that why you signed Jamey Carroll to remind yourself that every team should have at least one bad contract?
NC:Jamey Carroll is a baseball player, who can help out all over the diamond, John Hart says he's gritty good.
Aflac Duck: Will the fact that Broxton has failed twice against the Phillies in back to back seasons have a carry over effect into this season?
NC:No
Aflac Duck: Is Broxton becoming the new version of Billy Wagner? One of the best closers in baseball but someone you can't count on in the playoffs?
NC:No
Aflac Duck: Why do hate switch hitting prospects?
NC:What do you mean?
Aflac Duck: Since the summer of 2008 you have traded three switch hitting prospects in Carlos Santana, Josh Bell, and Tony Abreu. The only one left is Trayvon Robinson, should he keep his bags packed?
NC:I don't have anything against switch hitters, those are the guys that the other teams wanted or No Deal.
Aflac Duck: In 2008 you signed a brittle Nomar to be our 3rd baseman. When that did not work out you ended up having to trade top offensive prospect Carlos Santana for Case Blake. In 2009 you signed Will Ohman to be our 2nd strong left hander out of the pen, when that did not work out you had to trade our top offensive prospect Josh Bell for George Sherrill. Who did you sign this winter that is going to screw us, causing us to trade one of our prime prospects this summer to make up for it?
NC:Probably Padilla, or Carroll, hey it was not like I signed very many guys this winter. The choices are limited.
Aflac Duck: At some point are you ever going to let your minor league pitchers of the year pitch in the rotation or simply keep using the Eric Miltons of the world over and over? Ramon and Russ Ortiz? Josh Towers? Depth is depth, but crappy depth is simply crappy depth. Speaking of crappy depth what is with the plethora of lousy middle infielders? Not enough that you are actually paying Jamey Carroll but then you bring in Berroa, Nick Green, Argenis Reyes, and a broken Amezaga. Wilson Valdez or Oscar Robles not available?
NC:Are you done? How can you not understand that every team needs depth, depth, and more depth.
Aflac Duck: are you scared to death your season might be riding on the health of a 38 year old left fielder?
NC:No, we brought in some excellent candidates to help out Manny.
Aflac Duck: Yes, you did bring in some candidates. Normally when you give a quick comment about the players you have acquired you talk about great character guys. This character thing seemed important to you, yet last week you signed Brian Giles, a man who was caught on tape knocking his girlfriend to the ground. During your tenure you have acquired a SS who was released by the Astro's for knocking his girlfriend around in public, a pitcher who was cheered by his teammates when he was traded because he was considered such a jerk, and now a 25th type of player who appears to have done a bad job of managing his steroid rage as he's involved in a Civil Suit for allegedly causing the miscarriage of his girlfriends baby due to the violence he inflicted on her? Are these what you call good character guys?
NC:No Comment
Aflac Duck: Any truth to the rumor that your wearing the Beards' beard as your toupee?
Quack Quack Quack
135 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
great stuff!
My favorite: “Man I hope so, no one expected him to go from the good Kendall to the bad Kendall just because he had to catch most of the all-star game.”
I must admit that I’m a little bit behind on my know-your-tempermentally-challenged-bench-players knowledge. Other than Padilla and Giles, Phil, who were you referring to in your last comment? The steroid one was particularly intriguing…
thanks
So I guess Giles applies to the last one. Sheesh, and I felt BAD for him when he struggled last year. Funk that!
Per Dylan Hernandez:
Sports Hochi reports that pitcher Hisanori Takahashi will sign a minor-league deal with the Mets or Dodgers
Takahashi is like Smith in Japan
had a boss for a few years named Hiroshi Takahashi, word was that he was an olympic table tennis player back in the early 60’s for Japan.
Quick story:
He was our president in 1985 and we had a rule that no gambling was allowed but I decided to run a super bowl pool anyway. So I’m gathering money for squares when he see’s me surrounded by a few people and comes over to see what is going on. Everyone flew away and left me to deal with the situation. I cockily offered him some squares but he didn’t understand the concept. After a few minutes, he quickly grasped how the squares worked and eagerly purchased several squares. The best part was that he won, and I got to pay him in cold cash. He had no idea the company handbook said no gambling was allowed, it was strictly a cookie cutter handbook some admin person had cloned from some other company. Every year after that he made sure he was in my pool.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Feb 10, 2010 10:37 PM PST up reply actions
I love the duck
NC:It was easy compared to asking him to eat all of Andruw’s contract. As long as we only have to eat one lousy contract per winter Frank is okay with it.
by Jaydavis on Feb 10, 2010 10:59 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Payroll update
This is for Coolguy888888888888 and Dave. Thanks to Tony Jackson, I have cleared up the Manny and Kuroda paryoll issues. Manny’s payout is slightly different, and Kuroda’s $7.3 million signing bonus is spread over 3 years, and not paid all in 2008 as I had previously thought.
Manny
2009: $7,267,760 ($10m base, less suspension)
2010: $7,267,760 ($10m deferred from 2009, less suspension)
2011: $8,633,880 ($5m deferred from 2009, less suspension, plus $5m deferred from 2010)
2012: $10,000,000 (deferred from 2010)
2013: $5,000,000 (deferred from 2010)
Kuroda
$7.3 million signing bonus, spread over three seasons
2008: $7.6 million ($5 million base salary plus $2.6 million of signing bonus)
2009: $13.6 million ($10 million base salary plus $3.6 million of signing bonus)
2010: $14.1 million ($13 million base salary plus $1.1 million of signing bonus)
The net effect on the payroll worksheet is as follows:
2008: was $123,876,225; now $119,176,225
2009: was $106,679,840; now $110,279,840
2010: was $95,680,000; now $94,047,760
2011: was $89,767,213; now $91,433,880
2012: was $86,492,213; now $89,525,000
Darn he lost a lot of money on account of that misconception last year, the silly one, where who was supposed to take the fertility pills~! Mannny or his wife, Who knew?
but,
Manny
2009: $7,267,760 ($10m base, less suspension)
2010: $7,267,760 ($10m deferred from 2009, less suspension)
2011: $8,633,880 ($5m deferred from 2009, less suspension, plus $5m deferred from 2010)
2012: $10,000,000 (deferred from 2010)
2013: $5,000,000 (deferred from 2010)
Money lost, $2,732,240 last year. Another $2,732,240 this year, and $1,366,120 next year..
i mean how can a guy live on this? I’m looking for Manny to have a 35 HR 110 RBI year, just to get that big American league contract as a DH.
train
pss.. I lok for him to have a very good year.new contract and all..
I think that’s getting closer, but if you use the contract terms from Cot’s for Manny, the numbers are a little different:
Manny
2009: $7,267,760 ($10m base for 2009, less suspension)
2010: $8,633,880 ($5m deferred from 2009, less suspension; plus $5m base for 2010)
2011: $6,967,123 ($5m deferred from 2009, less suspension; plus $3.33m deferred from 2010)
2012: $6,967,123 ($5m deferred from 2009, less suspension; plus $3.33m deferred from 2010)
2013: $8,333,334 (deferred from 2010)
I’m curious about the difference: was Tony Jackson speaking in “I know” terms, or in “I think” terms. (I’m just trying to figure out how much weight to give the patina of “from Tony Jackson” vs. Cot’s is all.)
It doesn’t make a lot of sense for the Dodgers to structure a contract the way Tony Jackson has it (paying all of the 2009 deferred money and then paying the 2010 deferred money, in that order), because it’s disadvantageous to the Dodgers and advantageous to Manny. So I’m wondering.
Just curious: what makes it advantageous or disadvantageous to structure the contract the way they did? It was structured before he wS suspended so it’s not like they knew one year would have different payouts.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 8:00 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
What I mean is, it’s not like there were these two payout options and the Dodgers chose one over the other. The payout structure is what it is.
I trust Tony Jackson’s source more than Cot’s in this case. There was a lot of conflicting info out there regarding this contract, which is what led me to investigate more in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong; I love Cot’s. It is a wonderful source. But also keep in mind he has info for all 30 teams so it’s understandable that a few specific details on fall through the cracks.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 8:24 AM PST up reply actions
The suspension is a separate thing from the original structure of the contract (and doesn’t really matter one way or the other).
We’re into the murky world of accrual accounting and present vs. future value again, so I have to simplify:
We know that the deferred money in Manny’s contract is at 0% interest—because it’s been publicly disclosed—so it’s advantagous for the Dodgers to set the cost basis in the contract year (2009 or 2010) and then extend the deferred payments as long as they possible can. They benefit from some combination of: the other things they can do with the money and/or the interest/investment income they can get from the money.
Maybe a couple of examples to clarify the difference:
—You were talking about the Diamondbacks deferred contracts from the early 2000s yesterday. They obviously got totally carried away, but the mistake they made wasn’t necessarily all the deferred money; it was paying the players 6.5%-to-8.25% interest on the deferred money. That’s why the ownership group that took over in 2004 is doing everything than can to accelerate the payments and get them off the books.
—The Red Sox, on the other hand, are still on the hook for almost $30m in deferred money on Manny’s last contract. They’ll be paying it out in annual installments until 2026 at 0% interest (that’s also been publicly disclosed). The Red Sox will never lift a finger to accelerate payments on that money, because they’re making out like bandits.
If Tony Jackson’s information is correct, it means Manny is making more money than we thought.
It’s sort of hairsplitting about cartoon money but, depending what assumptions you make, it’s the difference between being able to buy one or two broken down middle relievers.
Like I said though, it’s not like there were only two payout options, and the Dodgers chose one over the other. It was just reported wrong.
It’s not a huge difference in present value:
One payout is 10-10-10-10-5
The other is 10-10-8.33-8.33-8.33
If you discount at 5%, the present value of the first payout is ~$41.346m, and the second is ~$41.136m, a difference of about $200k.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 8:51 AM PST up reply actions
(Sorry. I’m the world’s slowest writer and I just can’t keep up with you; I’m about two posts behind.)
Yeah. That’s about right. (I was trying to be cute and probably should have used “one or two more portable concession carts” instead of middle relievers.)
I wasn’t saying there were two payout options, just that Tony Jackson was furnishing new, different information than I had. The structure in the Cot’s version just makes more sense, that’s why I wondered. Thanks for clarifying.
No problem. The original AP report had the 10-10-8.33-8.33-8.33 structure, although without details of the breakdown. It is indeed very confusing, and I’m just glad I now have what I believe is the correct information. In the end, that’s all I want anyway.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
This is a big week for Dodger blogs
First Dodger Thoughts gets an interview with Frank McCourt, then TBLA gets the Aflac Duck to interview Ned Colletti! The internet sure does make the world smaller.
eBay is awesome
I paid $3.75 total, including shipping for both the 1978 and 1988 Dodgers media guides. Once I get them I’ll do a post about them, with pictures!
I never really heard much about him. Does anyone know if he could have been a factor for us? I read where is a a bit of soft-tosser, but other than that I think it is widely believed he will be working out of the pen in the US.
Reports this morning were that he was choosing between the Mets, Dodgers, and maybe the Twins. It sounds like all the deals were minor league offers, and Takahashi went where he had the best chance to start.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
He could only have been depth at the 5th starter and/or swingman role
and we have plenty of those candidates. Even, though he is a lefty, he doesn’t get lefties out particularly well, so he would not be a LOOGY. He relies on a slew of offspeed trickery like the screwball and he doesn’t really profile as a late inning reliever, so I don’t think he would have been much more than a depth signing.
Minor league deal, with $1m if in majors + $2m more in incentives
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I never knew Kuroda was making so much in base salary (13 mill) along with a deferred bonus(1.1 mill). Any chance he resigns for a couple more years after 2010, and for anything near what he’s making now?
A lot will depend on his 2010 performance and health. I can’t imagine he would be able to get more than $5-6 million a year if he’s a 150-inning pitcher heading into his age 36 season.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 9:19 AM PST up reply actions
Lincecum arbitration tomorrow
Giants offered $8m / Lincecum asked for $13m (and he will win if it goes to hearing). How important is this hearing? From Buster Olney:
Heard this: The Giants might wind up sending as few as one member of their front office to the Lincecum hearing. The heavy lifting on management’s side of the case will be done by MLB, and not the Giant
The Giants best hope is a multi-year deal, since they will lost in a hearing. They offered 3/$37m (9.5/12.5/15). Lincecum countered at “north of $40 million” which sounds about right. I don’t want to speak for someone in a matter of millions, but he really should be able to get $43-45m or so over a 3-year deal. When he wins $13m, it will be easier to get at least $30m (maybe $35m) over his next two years in arbitration. Factor in some discount for the security of a multi-year deal, and you end up in the $40-45m range.
How great would it be if they went year to year with him and ended up losing him to Free Agency in a few years. A man can dream, can’t he? Haha.
On that note, I know talent is talent and who cares who he’s played for, but I’m not sure I could stand having Lincecum be a Dodger if he did go to Free Agency in a few years. It might work if he got a haircut, but he just doesn’t feel like he could ever be a Dodger.
I would commit a crime, just so I could go to prison to let my cellmate do unspeakable things to me, if it meant Lincecum would be a Dodger.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
I know it’s dumb a petty, but I find it hard to root for ex-Giants when they come to the Dodgers. The one exception has really been Jeff Kent, and that’s because he hated Bonds. I think i got this from my dad who’s been a Dodger fan and Giants hater since the early 60s. Something about Timmy just rubs me the wrong way, and that is besides him being a Giant.
Though a rotation of Kershaw, Lincecum (of course Kershaw will be the ace :D), Billingsley, Withrow/Martin/Elbert/Mcdonald, Miller/Lindblom/Eovaldi is mouth watering, though.
That is the textbook definition of true love.
by keithc13 on Feb 11, 2010 1:23 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Lincecum is a great pitcher
I stopped hoping he’d fall apart and that hitters would catch up to him over a year ago, because I don’t think it’s going to happen and he’s going to be around for a while.
If he were to be a dodger he’d have to put on a few pound as he’s rail thin and when he does struggle it’s in hot temperature games. That’s something he doesn’t usually have to worry about pitching in Frisco. Would be nice to pry him out of there though.
No more raining on BN's rainy parade, they took their ball and went home, lmao.
by S Jay Bruin on Feb 11, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
Lincecum would likely
sign with a team in a state or even a city that legalized pot. Therefore, he’d probably resign with the Giants or Humdoldt if they ever get an expansion team.
vr, Xei
The theory behind my speak-for-someone-else turning down millions risk theory is this:
$13 million on its own (the salary Lincecum will make in 2010 if he goes to arbitration) is enough of a salary such that even if he lost his arm in a combine accident Lincecum would be set for life anyway.
The upside for Lincecum is that he continues to be a badass on the mound, and keeps setting records over the next three years (2011-2013) in arbitration year to year.
That said, it’s hard to look away when $40m+ is on the table.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
Giants offered $8m / Lincecum asked for $13m (and he will win if it goes to hearing).
Eric, I know you are on top of these things, so I’m curious how you can be sure that Lincecum will win? He is such a unique case as there are literally no comps for him, how can you be sure the arbiter will come up with a number closer to $13MM than $8MM?
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Both sides will battle at the midpoint, arguing their side is worth a penny more or less, so the number is $10.5m.
Ryan Howard got $10 million based on one MVP award, with the “special consideration” to be able to compare him to current salaries (not necessarily of his service time).
Lincecum has two Cy Young awards, so it should be a slam dunk for him to argue is worth $500,000.01 more than Howard based on one extra major award.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
based on recent signings
Lincecum should definitely win. Having said that, high-end starting pitchers have been getting WAY too much money recently, even by the already unseemly high salaries of professional athletes. Don’t get me wrong- we pay the price for the tickets, these guys are the elite among the elite at what they do, and they deserve millions for their high level of performance and everything that comes with it. But millions and millions and MORE millions, when there’s a good chance they’ll either underperform or just breakdown altogether before their contracts even expire?! We keep hearing “baseball is a business”, but this doesn’t seem like very good business- especially if this economy doesn’t get better, which I don’t think it will (but that’s a topic for a whole other message board). :/
Good job to the duck
asking the questions I want answered, unfortunately the answers will have trouble competing for a title.
No more raining on BN's rainy parade, they took their ball and went home, lmao.
Hey espn insiders,
I’m not a big fan of Buster Olney’s work, but today he wrote a great article on Doug Brocail, who just retired. He really loved the game even those his career was derailed by injuries (including two Tommy John surgeries) and played with crappy teams (never pitched in the post season). But it didn’t matter to him, he enjoyed the game of baseball since day 1. Here’s a quote:
On regrets:
“Absolutely zero. You can talk all you want until you’re blue in the face about staying healthy, about maybe having a shot at winning 20 games, all that stuff. I was realistic. I went at it day by day, and I had a great time.”
More players should be like this
Agreed
I read that, and it was an awesome interview.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
Again, there is no arbitrator number
It is either $8M or $13M, the arbitration panel cannot come up with their own figure.
I read earlier today that the Giants offered a multi-year deal for 3 years at (years 3, 4, and 5). We’ll see how it will play out.
I don't see how an arbitrator could possibly rule in the Giants favor just because of what Ryan Howard got.
The Giants should have offered $10.5 MM or something and then maybe they could have won or settled.
Yep
Even if they were at like $9.5m or so, it would have made it easier to get a deal done at the midpoint. I can even sort of see a case for $9.5m, but $8m is too low.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
Take that up with my business law professor sir! Back in college he explained arbitration by using salary abritration in baseball and his understanding was that a team submits a number, the player submits a number, and the arbiter submits a number. Whichever number is closer to the arbiter’s number, gets their number.
Though, I feel like you have mentioned this to me several times and I keep on forgetting that my professor was in fact, wrong.
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
It’s either/or. The arbiters have a list of all salaries for players from the previous August 31 as a guide, and usually both sides (player and team) will argue against the midpoint, just trying to win one side or the other.
But the result is always either the player submission or the team submission. No in between.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
I realize that its either/or.
But in my example above, it would still end up being either or. Think of it this way, you make your arguments to me, and I come up with a number. At this point, we use my number (as the arbiter) simply as a measuring stick to realize which of the two offers submitted by club and player is more reasonable. If the arbiter’s “number” is closer to $13MM (regardless of what the arbiter’s number is) then the player has won and he is awarded $13MM.
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
If you ever read "Lords of the Realm"
Which is an excellent if dry, history of baseball’s labor negotiations and what led to the current system (which really hasn’t changed much in over 30 years), it explains how when baseball went to arbitration about the “Reserve” clause, both sides knew they had 1 vote each of the 3 votes, which meant one man had the deciding vote. He told MLB that they should try to settle this question prior to his ruling but they couldn’t find a way to agree to something so the arbitrator ended up agreeing with Marvin Miller.
I would guess that if owners had to do it over again, they would rather have players just become free agents after 3 years than deal with arbitration-eligible players.
by bhsportsguy on Feb 11, 2010 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
That’s a tough trade off…would the owners be better off with a market flooded with free agents to depress salaries, and would that be enough to offset the gain they currently get from pre-arb players making less than market value?
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
they would rather have players just become free agents after 3 years than deal with arbitration-eligible players.
In bhsportsguy’s scenario, pre-arb players are pre-FA players, still renewable for the first three years.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Poor phrasing on my part. I was wondering if the savings from depressed FA costs would be enough to offset no longer saving money on 4-6 year guys through arb
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Frm the CBA
some relevant passages regarding arbitration:
Article VI.F(5):
Submission may be made at anytime between January 5 and January 15. In the event the offer of the Club is reduced on or subsequent to January 15, the Player’s right tosubmit to arbitration shall be reinstated for a period of 7 days. Arbitration hearings shall be held as soon as possible after submission and, to the extent practicable, shall be scheduled to be held from February 1 to February 20. The arbitration panel may render the decision on the day of the hearing, and shall make every effort to doso not later than 24 hours following the close of the hearing. The arbitration panel shall be limited to awarding only one or the other of the two figures submitted. There shall be no opinion. There shallbe no release of the arbitration award by the arbitration panel except to the Club, the Player, the Association and the LRD. The panel chair shall initially inform the Association and the LRD of the award only and not how the panel members voted. The panel chair shall disclose to the Association and the LRD the individual votes of the panel members on each March 15 following the February hearings.The panel chair shall insert the figure awarded in paragraph 2 of the duplicate Uniform Player’s Contracts delivered at the hearing and shall forward both copies to the Office of the Commissioner.
Article VI.F(9):
The hearings shall be conducted on a private and confidential basis. Each of the parties to a case shall be limited to one hour for initial presentation and one-half hour for rebuttal and summation. The aforesaid time limitations may be extended by the arbitration panel in the event of lengthy cross-examination of witnesses, or for other good cause.
Article VI.F(12):
Criteria
(a)The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball salaries (see paragraph (13) below for confidential salary data),the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance (subject to the exclusion stated in subparagraph (b)(i) below). Any evidence may be submitted which is relevant to the above criteria, and the arbitration panel shall assign such weight to the evidence as shall appear appropriate under the circumstances. The arbitration panel shall,except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service, give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his representative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as is deemed appropriate.
(b)Evidence of the following shall not be admissible:
(i)The financial position of the Player and the Club;
(ii)Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing on the performance of either the Player or the Club, except that recognized annual Player awards for playing excellence shall not be excluded;
(iii)Offers made by either Player or Club prior to arbitration;
(iv)The cost to the parties of their representatives, attorneys, etc.;
(v)Salaries in other sports or occupations.
Article VI.F(13):
Confidential Major League Salary Data.
For its confidential use, as background information, the arbitration panel will be given a tabulation showing the minimum salary in the Major Leagues and salaries for the preceding season of all players on Major League rosters as of August 31, broken down by years of Major League service. The names and Clubs of the Players concerned will appear on the tabulation. In utilizing the salary tabulation, the arbitration panel shall consider the salaries of all comparable Players and not merely the salary of a single Player or group of Players.
The aforesaid time limitations may be extended by the arbitration panel in the event of lengthy cross-examination of witnesses
“Mr. Ausmus—The question is simple. When Billingsley’s on the mound, what kind of look does he have in his eyes?”
LOL
And the graph of Broxton’s sweat volume vs. situation leverage.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group
So for Super Twos you can comp to the the full years ahead of them, e.g., Ethier, as a super-Two plus one year, could have had comps this off season to players who are second-year arb-eliglible players with four full years.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
I just realized why I stopped going on the Dodgers.com forums
People there don’t really know anything about baseball more than just what they see on ESPN.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/los-angeles-dodgers-top-10-prospects/#comment-129791
Unbelievable, they have Withrow 6th!!!! I haven’t read anything yet, but that’s just stupid.
fangraphs knows NOTHING about prospects..
i would not trust them one bit
Well
What you have is someone who may be an expert on none or one team, putting together a prospect review of all 30 teams. They’d be better off having one expert from each team covering that one team only. Since they don’t have those resources you get this. It would be better off for SB Nation to put something like this together. Most SB Nation baseball sites have something similar to this, but it is not published in such a way as to easily find minor league/draft write ups for all teams. TBLA does a great job, but if I want to quickly go check out the White Sox or Pirates review I may or may not ever find it. So yeah, take anything team oriented at FanGraphs with a grain of salt.
vr, Xei
His stuff isn’t electric and he projects as more of a No. 3 starter.
Well, that explains the crap ranking. The article reads like a statistical analysis, so I’m confused the basis by which they are doubting his stuff. Withrow’s stats shine, particularly since he had the low HR rate in High A as opposed to Martin who did it in the MWL (Martin was ranked 2nd.)
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Which is fine, I understand that fangraphs is a site for statistical analysis, but just refrain from using the throw away comments about his “stuff” and actually use the statistics to make your rankings. Based on stats, Withrow is the clear number 1 in the system.
Also, the fact that they didn’t rank the recent draftees (Gould and Miller) confirms that the entire basis for these rankings is numbers, not scouting. Because (at least with Miller) you could have scouted those guys and included them in the rankings.
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
Withrow hits tops out at 99 mph in 2009, yet his stuff isn’t “electric.”
I guess he relies more on gas.
by silverwidow on Feb 11, 2010 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
Withrow
Have you guys not seen the description of Withrow’s fastball under “repetoire?” That article says Withrow’s fastball is 88-92 MPH. That is what Baseball America said Withrow’s fastball sat at when he was a high school senior, in their draft preview before the 2007 draft. So the Fangraphs’ writer is using information that is 2.5 years old.
by CanuckDodger on Feb 11, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I am finding it difficult to accept pitchers that project to being “set-up men” (Lindblom, Elbert) are better prospects than pitchers that project to “No. 3 starters” (Withrow). Give me a No.3 starter prospect first, IMO; I can scrounge up set up men from lots of sources, including No. 3 starter prospects that don’t make it to starter-hood.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Lol, they've got Ely as our 7th best prospect
7. John Ely, RHP, Double-A
DOB: May 1986 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2007 3rd round – Miami University
MLB ETA: Mid-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 88-92 mph fastball, plus change-up, curveball
Despite jumping from high-A to double-A between ‘08 and ‘09, Ely showed improvements in a number of categories. The right-hander saw his batting-average-allowed drop from .257 to .241, his FIP went from 4.02 to 3.33 and his home-run rate slipped from 1.11 to 0.52 HR/9. Ely’s walk rate of 2.88 BB/9 was almost identical to his ‘08 number, but his strikeout rate worsened from 8.30 to 7.20 K/9. The knock on Ely has been his lack of a consistent knock-out pitch. Despite his average stuff, the former Sox prospect could succeed at the Majors thanks to his good command and solid ground-ball rates (+50%).
He’s shown better k numbers in the minors than Garland in the majors (i’ve never seen Garland’s minor league numbers) at just under 8 Ks/9 innings, but his minor league and college numbers just look really average to me. He is going to be 24 and has done well in AA in the Southern League, but never played above it and only had 7.2 Ks per 9 innings last season, though with a 2.9 BB per 9 inning.
I would like to see what Ely (pronounced EE-LEE according to Ned) does in the mile high altitude of Albuquerque.
by silverwidow on Feb 11, 2010 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
Should be in Albuquerque. Don’t see the point of him returning to AA after pitching 150 innings.
by silverwidow on Feb 11, 2010 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Yea true. The only reason I mentioned it is that it seems like sometimes they like to protect guys from ABQ and bump them to the majors from AA when/if there is injury or need.
I think that’s more with the younger prospects. Since Ely will be 24 in May it shouldn’t be a problem.
by silverwidow on Feb 11, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
An article on Bleacher Report says the Mariners will beat the Dodgers in the World Series. Kershaw will win NL Cy Young.
probably cliff lee
for shutting us the hell out in games 1 and 5
I kind of think
the Mariners are getting a little to much hype and will be a huge disappointment to their fans. They added some great stuff but they also lost some great stuff. If Milton does not come through they might have the least amount of power in the league. Will be curious if pitching/defense/speed will be enough, this ain’t 65/66 and they don’t have Koufax/Drysdale/Osteen.
What did they lose that wasn't replaced aside from Branyan?
They won 85 games last year. Beltre has a horrible injury plagued year and only put up 8 HRs. Jack Wilson is considered at least an upgrade over Betancourt. Figgins is obviously a different type of player than Beltre, but will likely put up a better season than Beltre’s 2009. IF Bradley can play even 100 games its an upgrade over Wladimir Balentein/Endy Chavez. Kotchman is decent although obviously a loss of power there.
They have Cliff Lee for the whole season and I’m sure fans are hoping Gutierrez can build on what he did in the second half of last season. They should at the least be strong division contenders although maybe the WS is a stretch.
Looking at what they lost or gained
doesn’t tell the story correctly. Better to just look at what “they have”. And looking at what they have – they appear to be anywhere from an 80 to 86 win team. That might be good enough to win the AL West, especially if they come out on the high end of this. The problem for them is, every other team in the AL West has a very similar win total projection. We could easily see all four teams in the AL West hit 80 wins this year. Chances are decent that none of them will hit 90+ either. If your team is 50/50 (or close to that) to matching your win totals from the previous year, what is the big deal? The thing that benefits or should excite Mariner fans the most, is that the Angels are likely to be worse this year (talent wise and regression to the mean wise). So winning 85 games in 2010 is not the same as winning 85 games in 2009.
vr, Xei
They were outscored by 60 or so runs last season, so one might say they were very, very lucky to win 85 games. Without any power, they will have to rely on 4 hits in an inning to score, much like the pre-09 Dodgers. They will do well, but the same thing happened in 2007 and every picked them to win big in 08 but they flopped then. I’m not saying that will happen, but I think it’s more likely that they flop than make the WS.
I expect them to be
strong contenders only because as Xeifrank says, the Angels are coming back to them. If they win more then 90 games I’ll be surprised. I just don’t see this team scoring enough runs. They have an offensive infield even worse then the Dodgers, without one big bat in the outfield to offset it. If Figgins becomes 2008 Figgins instead of 2009 Figgins it could be even worse.
I’m not expecting anything from Bedard and I’m not sure why anyone would be. Who was the last pitcher who came back in midseason from TJ and actually contributed some positive numbers? Maybe Josh Johnson so hopefully I’m wrong. So after the big two the rest is kind eh and very dependent on that defense. To win 90 games I think they needed a stronger rotation and at least some power to help generate some runs. JMO, I don’t do fangraph analysis with WAR, I simply look at the roster and don’t see as much as everyone seems to see.
I'm not going disagree or agree
with the Fangraphs placement of Withrow but I think we can all agree that we’d take a number 3 in the rotation. I don’t find that as a slight, that could still be very valuable.
I found the Elbert comments interesting and on low side of expectations. To me his ceiling is a number three in the rotation, followed by a Billy Wagner closer type, followed by a Thornton/Kuo setup guy. All kind of valuable.
Other then the placement of Withrow and the comments about Elbert/Withrow, I thought it was okay and not poor as so man of the comments stated. Fangraphs is not behind a pay wall so my expectations are not the same as DodgerScout, BA, or BP.
lol they said elberts CEILING is a set up man...
how can a ceiling of a set up man be the number 5 prospect..
Not that there was a chance of this happening
with Johnson and Giles on board, but since the Dodgers were rumored to be interested earlier this is good news, from Lyle Spencer:
Robb Quinlan returning to the Angels on a minor league deal.
So . . .
The Tigers traded Granderson to save money, then [are about to] sign Johnny Damon in the same offseason?
The rationale I can figure is the “save money” claim was false, but they would have paid $13.25m to Granderson for 2010-11 but instead chose to pay (if rumors are true) $14m to Damon instead, and they also get Jackson out of it.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I don’t get the sudden spike either.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
I heard the White Sox are in play, too.
Imagine if Juan Pierre lost time to Damon. As someone who dislikes Pierre, that would be funny.
It would be hard to find 2 worse arms in LF in MLB.
by keithc13 on Feb 11, 2010 4:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Depends on what they spend for him
I heard he might be down to 5 mill or less. Also, they got some good prospects for him right?
Willie Mays
Is on the Daily Show right now… Pretty cool
Saw that last night…pretty good stuff. I cringed (and laughed) when Jon Stewart noted that Mays had a “three hundred and two batting average” though :)
I am looking forward to the more in-depth 2-hour Mays interview with Costas, which is sitting on my DVR.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks Phil, clearly I have a sick sense of humor. The surgery went fine. I spent about eight hours total at the hospital and I am now back home resting. I’ll show everyone my neck scar at the next TBLA night.
Everyone I dealt with at the hospital was very professional and gave me confidence that they knew what they were doing – and I ain’t the easiest guy in the world to convince.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
You know what they say about spring training players…if you have a high number, good luck making the team. Anyway, with that in mind, here are the number assignments for the Dodger NRIs (except for Timo Perez and Jon Koronka):
INF 0 Alfredo Amezaga
RHP 26 Luis Ayala
OF 66 Brian Barton
INF 30 Angel Berroa
C 77 J.D. Closser
RHP 88 Scott Dohmann
RHP 79 Francisco Felix
OF 28 Brian Giles
C 81 Gabe Gutierrez
INF 21 Nick Green
C 82 Justin Knoedler
RHP 70 Josh Lindblom
INF 76 John Lindsey
INF 13 Doug Mientkiewicz
RHP 45 Justin Miller
INF 72 Russell Mitchell
RHP 35 Ramon Ortiz
RHP 48 Russ Ortiz
LHP 78 Juan Perez
OF 61 Prentice Redman
OF 29 Michael Restovich
INF 63 Argenis Reyes
RHP 83 Josh Towers
RHP 36 Jeff Weaver
Others
5 Johnson
14 Carroll
87 DeJesus
70 Lindblom
64 Guerra
71 May
75 Paul
62 Trayvon
74 Jansen
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
Lindblom was #84 last spring, so he’s moving up in the world :)
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
I have just been informed that Timo Perez and Jon Koronka were invited to spring training but will start in minor league camp
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
Koronka-tonk, be-donka-a-donk?
(Maybe the anesthesia hasn’t completely worn off.)
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
I can’t blame the anesthesia on the fact that I laughed way too hard at this comment.
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
For the most part, the unis don’t matter. Maybe he requested it, and/or wears the same size jersey as Jason Schmidt :)
by Eric Stephen on Feb 11, 2010 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
NPUT
http://www.truebluela.com/2010/2/11/1306876/forget-roses-inhale-the-sweet
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
