I said last week that the coming week would be big. Either big good, or big bad.
As of today, the Dodgers can only hope to finish this week 2-4 against the two teams in front of them in the playoff race, so I guess you know how that panned out. (Post game update: 1-5 on the week. So. Whatever.)
More importantly, the trade deadline came this week, and the Dodgers, for some reason, decided to be buyers.
Here's the realization I came to this week: if the Dodgers happen to find success this year, they will do so in spite of management and ownership.
I mean, maybe, in the back of my head, I've always known this to be true, but as long as the Dodgers were winning, I was willing to let management slide.
But this week has just been a Doctorate level course in bad management, at both the manager and GM level. So, if you'll indulge me (more than you already are just by visiting my blog), I've got a lot of complaining to do.
First, you have the manager. Much has been made about Joe Torre's managing style, especially his mismanagement of the bullpen (which is terrible*) but at this point, I almost don't even care about it so much. Yeah, really.
*Long aside: another shining example of which came on Thursday. Dodgers vs. Padres, 9th inning, tie score, and both Jonathan Broxton and George Sherrill warming in the bullpen. So, who comes in to face a righty heavy portion of the San Diego lineup? George Sherrill, of course, who, by the way, can't seem to get anybody out, but especially can't get out right handed hitters. Shocker upon all shockers, Sherrill loses the game. Broxton, meanwhile, stands in the bullpen waiting for a save opportunity that will never come. Ok, his terrible bullpen management still does make me miserable, but...
At this point, I'll take any manager, bullpen mistakes or not, who is able to make roster moves that aren't mind-numbingly stupid. I mean, for God's sake, why is Sherrill still on this team? And why the Hell is Garret Anderson still allowed to eat up a valuable roster spot? And who's bright effing idea was Jack Taschner?!
All I really want is someone who is willing to give Sherrill and Anderson their walking papers. Or someone, who, when presented with the idea of bring Jack Taschner up to the major league roster, stops for just a second and thinks: "That's a terrible idea. Absolutely not."
Seriously, why is this so damn hard? If we are so dedicated to winning this year, why are we not filling our roster with the 25 best players we can?
... which brings me to the General Manager.
Ned Colletti had one hell of a trade deadline this week.
Colletti completed three trades this week. Lucas May and Elisaul Pimentel for Scott Podsednik. Blake DeWitt and pitching prospects Brett Wallach and Kyle Smit for Ted Lilly and Ryan Theriot. And finally, right before the deadline, Colletti swapped James McDonald and Andrew Lambo for Octavio Dotel. Now, before I break down these trades, I need to address whether or not the Dodgers should have even been buyers.
There's a good argument to be made that the Dodgers should have sold at the deadline. Hiroki Kuroda, Manny Ramirez, and Vicente Padilla will be free agents this offseason. Also, one or two of the handful of young players who will look for raises in the offseason could have also been on the move. Any of these players could have been shipped out for what would likely be a good return.
The counter-argument to this, though, is that the Dodgers were still within five games of the Wildcard when the deadline passed on Saturday.
Add to that the fact that most Dodger fans would have revolted, and I could see how it would be difficult justifying a fire sale.
So, you have two other options. You can do what the Dodgers did and buy ... or you can stand pat.
Personally, I would've have done nothing. I can see how this method also might have it's issues. Again, you deal with the fans who see this as waving the white flag. Also, you probably end up getting nothing for leaving veterans like Kuroda, who will most likely not receive an offer for arbitration in the offseason.
But, I'm sticking with this as having been the best choice. I see it like this, aside from the starting pitching, the Dodgers are playing far below their potential. When the Dodgers scored five runs on Friday, it was only the fourth time since the All-Star break that the Dodgers scored more than three runs in a game. (Ironically, they are 0-4 in those games, so, yes, the only time the Dodgers can score runs is when the pitching is giving up even more.)
What is it going to take for the Dodgers to reach the postseason? The regulars need to show up. Casey Blake and Russell Martin continue to fade offensively (though they might never turn it around). Matt Kemp, meanwhile, needs to pull out of his long, long slump. Rafael Furcal, who was so vital to the Dodger offense for the first half, has only been hitting .263 since the break. Worse off is Andre Ethier, who is hitting .135 (.507 OPS) since the break. If the Dodgers hope to have any success this season, these guys (plus Manny) have to return to form.
So, what did the Dodgers do? They added Scott Podsednik, who, admittedly, could be a nice complementary piece, but isn't going to be the difference maker in the race for the pennant.
They added Ted Lilly, who fills the gaping hole of #5 starter, and Ryan Theriot, an offensive downgrade at 2nd base to both Blake DeWitt (now on the Cubs) and Jamey Carroll (now warming the bench).
Then Colletti finished his tour with the addition of Octavio Dotel, who, again, could be a nice complementary piece, but isn't a game changer with his shiny 4.28 ERA (his 3.84 FIP is nicer but not more so than the man he's replacing ... Travis Schlichting has a 3.16 FIP in only 18 less innings).
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not a fan of these trades. And I have four reasons to back this up.
1. We are buying when we shouldn't be. To rehash a previous point, we really should have sold or stood pat, just given the growing improbability that we actually make the playoffs.
2. Almost all of these trades were severe examples of overpaying.
Look at the Podsednik trade. Didn't we have the leverage? The Royals are going nowhere and Podsednik is a free agent at the end of the season. What were they going to do, keep him? Did we really need to send both our last bit of catching depth (May) and a promising young pitcher (Pimentel)? It really feels like one or the other should have been enough. If the Royals demanded more, then just say no. We really needed Podsednik that badly?
The Lilly/Theriot trade was more fair in terms of returns for each team. Don't get me wrong, it's a bad trade in it's own rights (Lilly is unnecessary and Theriot is a downgrade) but as far as one young 2nd baseman and two low level pitching prospects for a solid left handed pitcher and extremely average major league 2nd baseman, it's about even.
But all that is ruined with the Dotel trade. If Colletti had just sent James McDonald (a cheap, young pitcher who has shown a lot of promise in the past) to Pittsburg for Octavio Dotel (a 36 year old reliever), the trade would have been a win for Pittsburgh.
But. But... For some reason, Colletti threw into the trade, one time highly rated prospect Andrew Lambo. Yes, Lambo has had some issues in the minors with substance related suspensions. And, yes, he has struggled so far to adjust to high minors level pitching, but he's 22. He's got time to adjust. And he's got a high, high ceiling. So, why in the world was he sent to Pittsburgh for a 36 year old relief pitcher? I mean, if I had to guess, it'd be because the Pirates are paying the $500,000 remaining on Dotel's contract, but that's not really what I'm getting at.
What I'm saying is, when Dotel's name was brought up for trade consideration, why, when the Pirates asked for both McDonald and Lambo didn't Colletti just say no. It's so easy...
"You want Dotel. We want James McDonald."
"Eh, ok."
"And we want Lambo."
"You do realize Dotel is a 36 year old relief pitcher? And he's got an ERA over 4.00? So... no."
3. The returns the Dodgers received for all the players they gave up was overall, probably a lot less than it could've been. This is related to overpaying. This has been covered by several other blogs, but I think Jon Weisman tweeted it best:
"If you package Pimentel, May, McDonald, Lambo, DeWitt, Wallach and Smit together, I think that gets you something nicer."Yeah, it probably does. If we were willing to send off all of these young players for a handful of average players, some of which we really didn't need, couldn't we have turned these young players into a really good player that we could use?
4. Finally, these trades didn't need to be made. At least, not now. Not at this point in time.
Look at it like this: with the exception of Ted Lilly (maybe), do any of the players the Dodgers acquired become off limits past the July 31st deadline?
Was Scott Podsednik really not going to clear waivers? Or Theriot? Or Dotel?
Couldn't we have waited another two or three weeks and saw where we were in the standings before we pulled the trigger on a trade that sent away a bunch of prospects. Two weeks from now, if we were still in the race, couldn't we have then called up the Royals and asked about Podsednik? We were really that worried someone else was going to win the Octavio Dotel sweepstakes?
And, by the way, these players would most likely come cheaper the later into the season we acquire them.
What's the downside? Two less weeks of Ryan Theriot?
It's just frustrating.
It's so, so frustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment