Editorial: Rafael Furcal Resigns

So I've been watching all the drama that's come from the Rafael Furcal signing and trying to figure it all out.

It's a lot of he said/he said, but from what I gather, there's probably going to be more than a few boos for Furcal when the Dodgers travel to Atlanta in 2009.

In any case, whether or not there was some shady business going on in the deal, I really like the signing, as it solves a lot of problems.

Well, first things first, I'm not crazy about the amount of years. However, it really became obvious that we would need to offer Furcal at least three years to get him. So, even though I don't like it, I understand it had to be done.

That's what I didn't like. Here's what I like about the signing:

1. It shores up our infield. With the earlier signing of Casey Blake and now with the Furcal signing, plus having the right side of the infield pretty much penciled in as James Loney at 1st and Blake DeWitt at 2nd, we don't need to think about our infield anymore. We also got our utility infielder in Mark Loretta. Sure, maybe you add a defensive replacement here and there or a pinch hitter, but for the most part, any questions about the infield in 2009 should be solved. That's pretty good considering that coming into the offseason, three spots on the infield were, for the most part, question marks. Furcal, when healthy, is a name you can put on the lineup card every day.

2. We don't need to look for another shortstop. This includes having to trade away prospects to try and bring in a player to play short. Trading away the kids should be the last option. However, this also means we won't be signing a player like Orlando Cabrera. Not to say he's a horrible player, but Furcal is younger, and when he's healthy, he easily outhits Cabrera. Plus, signing Cabrera would mean surrendering a draft pick, as he declined arbitration earlier in the offseason.

3. ...and most important: we have a leadoff hitter. I guess this correlates with #1, but it's important. Sure, Furcal is a name you can put on the lineup card every day, but more importantly, he's a name you can put at the top of the lineup card. Without Furcal, the question of who would end up leading off for us in 2009 would be a pretty daunting one. With Juan Pierre asking for a trade, we really wouldn't have an established lead off hitter on the team. We could put Matt Kemp back in the role, possibly, but I'd still like to have his bat more in the middle of the lineup. Now, with Furcal back, that really becomes a moot point because we, once again, have an excellent leadoff hitter on the team.

Then again, this is all good if Furcal can stay healthy. The back issue is a bit scary, but if he can make it through the year, our team is going to be that much better.

Let's keep those fingers crossed...

Editorial: Dodgers Sign Two Infielders

Dodger GM Ned Colletti completed two deals during the Winter GM Meetings, signing Casey Blake and Mark Loretta to contracts.

Remember what I said about Casey Blake in my player profile of him?

I'll remind you:

"The free agent market for 3rd basemen is not strong at all... I guess I wouldn't mind seeing Blake back for the 2009 season. Maybe..."

Yeah, that's how enthusiastic I was about it. Still though, it's good to have a third baseman. There's nothing exciting about Casey Blake. We know what he's done in the past, and what he's likely to do in the future. But at least he provides us a solution to the 3rd base problem. He should be a solid 3rd baseman for at least the next two years. The third year, who knows? The fourth option year? Probably not.

But at least, in the present, he's our 3rd baseman. I guess it'll be nice to have a solid player there, if only for a little while. It's not a great signing, but it's good enough.

As for Mark Loretta, I do really like this signing, with a small caveat. The contract is good, one year, small amount of money. That's fine.

My issue is usage. This is a good signing if Joe Torre let's the infield be. What I mean by that is, this signing turns sour for me if Torre shoves Loretta into a starting role, benching a younger player in the process.

Loretta can player 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even a little shortstop. He's pretty good against left handed pitchers. That's perfect for us. He'll be a good backup infielder and possible spot starter here and there, maybe against a lefty.

That would make this signing perfect for me. I'm sad to see Nomar go, as Loretta is almost certainly taking his spot on the team, but Loretta is a suitable replacement, as long as he's used right.

Editorial: Baseball Fields

So, there's been a lot of talk about something Dodgers President Jamie McCourt said earlier this week.

From the L.A. Times:

"If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you?" Jamie McCourt asked in an interview at the Evergreen Recreation Center in East Los Angeles. "That's what we're trying to figure out. We're really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We're really trying to understand, would they rather have the 50 fields?"

Now, obviously, there has been a tremendous amount of backlash to this quote. The McCourt's insist they were speaking on a philosophical hypothetical level. Which very well could be the case. However, many are viewing McCourt's words to be something else... a testing of the waters.

First off, when did both charity and free agents become mutually exclusive? Why not have both? In any case, should this be just a hypothetical statement, then all is forgiven.

If this statement is really inferring that the McCourt's won't be ponying up some cash to bring in quality free agents this offseason, then there are going to be some issues.

The money that Dodger fans spend on going to games or purchasing merchandise is, at least by my assumptions, going back into the team. Yes, I know a lot of it is going into Frank McCourt's pocket, or to pay team President Jamie McCourt's salary. But I still assume the rest of it will go back into the team. It's bad enough when I see ticket prices being raised to Frank McCourt can build some kind of crazy super mall in the front of the stadium, but to think that the money I'm spending is going to be put into something that I'm never going to see the fruits of, then I'm going to start seriously reconsidering where I put my money.

I mean really, putting money into things you don't gain anything from? That's what property taxes are for.

If the McCourt's want to set up a foundation for building baseball fields, then do that, but keep the Dodger money away from the charity money. Those are two different piles of money, as well they should be.

Look, there's still obviously a lot to be seen with the backlash from all this. Will the McCourt's pay for quality free agents or not? Within the next couple months, we'll start to figure out what this all means. I'm not really ready to completely bash the McCourt's yet on some quote that might not mean anything in a few weeks.

But I am a little worried. And quite frankly, Jamie McCourt, if you really want to know what the Dodger fans think, these are the poll results from the L.A. Times:


That's right, folks. The Dodgers mean a lot to a lot of people. You can't even stick poor kids in between Dodgers and their fans. And I'm with them. Don't make us choose between the Dodgers and the kids, because first and foremost, I want my team to win. Is that really so wrong?

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving people. They'll be a new player profile up tonight. It's Chin-lung Hu. Don't get too excited...

Editorial: More Money For McCourt

Just a quick note:

I've stated this a few times over the last week. The Manny Ramírez trade wasn't so much for winning, but for popularity (ie. ticket sales, jersey sales, etc.). Orel, over at Sons of Steve Garvey, found an interesting note in a recent L.A. Times story about Manny. Check it out here.

Editorial: Update On Manny

So, in the first editorial I wrote about Manny, I mentioned:

"What will Manny bring to the Dodgers? Attendance. ...what does Frank McCourt care? As long as Manny puts butts in the seats..."

Well, the ad geniuses working for the Dodgers got right on that. This was on the Dodger homepage. Anything for attendance numbers, I guess.I also said some things about the media, as well. Like, for example, that Bill Plaschke would, how did I put it?

"And Bill Plaschke will jump up and say "Ah hah, ah hah! I said this should happen! I was right!"

Well, this was on the L.A. times website:

That's right Bill, the Dodgers listened to you and made a deal. It's good to know you have so much pull around here.

And by the way, I also mentioned in that article how we would be named "Winners" at the trade deadline by the national media (the same people who will go back to ignoring us next year when we have holes in our lineup). Well, Jayson Stark of ESPN.com, Jon Heyman of SI.com, and Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports.com all had very flattering things to say about us and our blockbuster deal.Enjoy it while it lasts.

Update: The Dodgers sold an additional 12,000 tickets for last nights game... butts in the seats...

Editorial: More On LaRoche

Because I can't really let anything go, I had a couple more notes about yesterday's trade.

I made the point in my last post about LaRoche's 152 major league at-bats with us and how that is hardly anything. Well, another thought came to me. 93 at-bats came last year when LaRoche played under Grady Little for the Dodgers. As far as the current manager, Joe Torre, he saw only 59 of Andy's at-bats. Well, here's my issue.

Apparently, those 59 at-bats were enough for Torre to determine that LaRoche wasn't worthy of playing 3rd for the Dodgers. However, Torre has given Mark Sweeney, (MARK SWEENEY!!!) 67 at-bats. And yet, Sweeney remains on the roster for the Dodgers.

So, therefore, 59 at-bats were enough to determine whether or not one player could be the 3rd baseman for the team, but not nearly enough to figure out that Mark Sweeney can't bat .200 to save his life.

I guess Mark Sweeney provides a veteran presence or something... or maybe he gives the team a lot of "professional at-bats." That's a phrase that I've gotten real tired of. Mark Sweeney might strike out 21 times in 67 at-bats, but he really looked professional wailing away at strike three.

I mean, is the only reason he's on the team because he's turning 39 in October?

One other note, Diamond Leung of the Press-Enterprise noted:

Logan White spoke with Andy LaRoche and Bryan Morris, and he said LaRoche was excited to go to Pittsburgh. Asked if White was sad to see LaRoche go, he said, "Not at all."

I'm glad LaRoche is excited to go to Pittsburgh. I'd be, too. You want to go where you feel wanted...

Anyway, there's been some reaction to this. People are unsure of what White meant by it. Well, Jon Weisman of Dodger Thoughts went the extra step:

I asked Leung to give the context of White's response, and Leung replied that White meant in terms of "Look who we got back."

Interesting. I got a couple of other things from the quote as well. And while I might be reading too much into this, here's some other things he could have meant:

"I'm not going to say something to undermine my boss Colletti even though he ignored my advice about keeping LaRoche... 'Not at all'."

Or "It will be good to see LaRoche succeed in a starting role and prove me to be an excellent judge of talent... 'Not at all'."

Or even, "When this move backfires in Colletti's face and he's fired, I can give you a good candidate to replace him... 'Not at all'."

Editorial: Manny

Ok, the last post was the simple informative post on the big trade. This one is reserved for my opinion and analysis.

I'll be honest, I'm having a flurry of emotions with this trade. There are some good points, and bad points, and overall, it raises a lot of questions.

For one, let me say this (and as a Dodger fan it pains me to say this): we are not that good a team this year. I had decided not too long ago that the goal for this year should be to get into the playoffs (something I think we could have done given our current players) and maybe win a game or two. Who knows, we could have lucked out and maybe even won a series. I had made peace with the fact that this year was more a rebuilding year, as we got to watch the kids play and grow a little, and we work toward the future. I was a huge supporter of letting the kids play, and saving up for the future.

Well, apparently, that has all changed. This trade for Manny is saying we want to win now. And for me, that's both the good and bad in this whole thing.

I'm glad we are committed to winning. I'm really glad we have a guy in the lineup now who will instill fear in the opposing pitchers. I'm glad we have that player who will be the guy that managers fear seeing on the lineup card every day (something the Dodgers have lacked since Adrián Béltre in 2004). It's going to be awesome to have that kind of power in the lineup. That's great...

But let's all be honest for a second. How much is Manny really going to help us? This is the part that raises the questions.

Is Manny good enough to carry us into the Playoffs? No doubt. We can easily take the Diamondbacks down now.

Is Manny good enough to help us win in the first round of the playoffs? Maybe. It depends on who we are playing...

Will we be able to out-slug the Philadelphia Phillies? What about the Chicago Cubs? Or for that matter, can we even come close to matching the Angels lineup or pitching should we even get that far?

What is our goal this year? How far into the playoffs are we trying to go? Because Manny alone won't be enough to get us there. He has no protection around him in the lineup. Our pitching staff, in its seemingly constant state of flux, might or might not survive the playoffs. If they aren't constantly on their game, we still might not make it past the first round. And that was something I was ok with before.

But...

The Dodger world is changed by this trade. I could accept some minimal success if this were still a rebuilding year.

But now?

Anything LESS than a World Series seems like a waste... especially because Manny has a $20 million dollar option for next year that we aren't going to pick up (part of accepting the trade here for Manny).

This trade says that we want to win THIS year, and honestly, I don't think we are ready for that. I don't think this team is ready for that.

And what did we give up for the trade. Well, for one, Bryan Morris was an intriguing pitching prospect. He was a first rounder that was coming off elbow surgery, but was looking like he had regained form, and was starting to pitch up to par. Sure, he was in Single-A. He might not even pan out, low risk there. But here's the killer for me: Andy LaRoche.

Again, it goes back to the idea of winning this year. If we somehow can win the World Series, then it will be all worth it. But here's my biggest question:

What happens if we don't?

Manny will probably leave at the end of the year. Casey Blake looks to be leaving at the end of the year. Jeff Kent will most likely retire at the end of the year. Who, exactly, do we plan on replacing Blake and Kent with? The Free Agent market for 2nd baseman, and especially for 3rd baseman looks very weak this year. Blake DeWitt is not going to hit for the kind of power that is expected from a 3rd baseman, if that's where the Dodgers plan on keeping him. If that's the case, who plays 2nd. If he moves to 2nd, who plays 3rd?

So what becomes of our team next year? If we don't accomplish anything this year, where does it leave us?

For years since Adrián Béltre left for Seattle, we've seen a revolving door of 3rd baseman... just a list of guys who couldn't cut it with the bat, or with the glove, or both. In Andy LaRoche, I saw a kid who could draw a walk, who could play a pretty good 3rd base, who could hit for a solid average, and most importantly, could hit for power. I saw... a solution. And all the scouts saw it. All the other teams saw it. Dodger management were the only ones who didn't. Them, and the Dodger fans who wanted LaRoche's head because he didn't immediately come up and hit .400 and 10 homeruns by pinch hitting every third game. He got all of four starts in a row to prove he could handle the 3rd base job, though by most scout's estimations, he's a streaky hitter that was going to need to play everyday to show what kind of player he could be. But, apparently, all the Dodgers needed were 152 big league at-bats, scattered inconsistently over two seasons (that has seen him be sent back to Triple-A three times since his debut) to decide he wouldn't be the player they wanted handling the hot corner for the next several years. By comparison, Jeff Kent, with his day's off here and there, has had 154 at-bats since June 5th alone. That's it, less than two months of playing time (by the way, Kent had only had eight more hits than LaRoche over that stretch). And now our solution to the 3rd base issue is going to be playing 3rd base in Pittsburgh. I hope for his sake that Pirates' management treats him better over there than the Dodgers treated him here.

But on top of all this, I still have other questions...

If we were able to get Manny, could we have not as easily got Jason Bay, who was also involved in this trade, and who is younger than Manny, hits very well, is less of a clubhouse distraction, and who is under contract for at least another year? The pieces all seem to be in place, why not skip the middle man in Boston?

And will Joe Torre make out the lineup the right way every day? He now has five outfielders. There are three that should be out there every day. Can he bring himself to stick Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones on the bench where they belong?

And the third, and one of the most important questions:

How will Manny behave for us? Peter Gammons, who was on ESPNews after the trade to give his analysis was nearly in tears recollecting Manny's time there. Gammons, a life long Red Sox fan, grew up in a time when the game was played for love of the game. When he started talking about how Manny gets paid $20 million dollars to play the game of baseball, and then on top if it all, he gets unhappy and starts doing his little primadonna act and playing lackadaisically, you could hear his voice start to break. Manny was a perfect example of how the game has changed. There's not a lot of love for the game of baseball. It's become a lot more a game based on personalities and paychecks (Look for the Peter Gammons Analysis Video Here, listen to the sadness in his voice when he talks about what this has all done to Terry Francona).

But I can understand that. I'm 19, I've grown up in a time where it's been made abundantly clear to me that baseball is a business. I can understand how that would be a lot harder to take for 63-year old Peter Gammons. I, honestly, am at a point where I couldn't care less about money, as far as how much players earn. Yes, they are grossly over paid for simply having the ability to hit a ball with a bat, but I'm fine with that. What I won't be ok with, is if Manny chooses to not care anymore. It's bad enough that Andruw Jones clearly doesn't. It's going to be very hard to watch if another player joins him.

So... those are just my issues, but who am I but a lowly blogger. You want to know why I think this trade really happened?

...Because there is not enough foresight. Because it doesn't matter what the future holds (or doesn't) if you can get some positive press now.

Attendance has been down this year for the Dodgers. In part because the team has struggled, and in part with the struggling economy and people having less to spend.

What will Manny bring to the Dodgers? Attendance.

Already in radio stations and on message boards, people have begun to express how enthusiastic they are that the Dodgers have acquired Manny. They exclaimed that they are going to be heading back to the stadium now because the games are going to be exciting again. Have these people even considered what they want from the team? Do they think that Manny will be enough to put us over the top? I hate being so negative... but he won't. Do you really think we are making it to the World Series?

But what does Frank McCourt care? As long as Manny puts butts in the seats...

And Ned Colletti will breath a sigh of relief. The media might just get off his back long enough that he might actually believe he has some job security. And if not, what does it matter, he'll be gone before the effects of what's he's really done begin to take shape.

But sure, for now, the Yahoo Sports or Fox Sports writers will write about how the Dodgers were "winners" at this year's trade deadline. And they'll leave us here to play our games, then won't think twice about what happens to us in the future.

And Bill Plaschke will jump up and say "Ah hah, ah hah! I said this should happen! I was right!" and when the Dodgers are full of holes next season and playing below average, he'll write a piece about the Dodgers having no soul or something like that, and condemn them for their lousy playing.

And T.J. Simers will write a moronic piece, kissing the Dodgers' butt, saying they are now the favorites to win everything, and exclaim he was a supporter all along. And then we will fail to make it to the World Series, and he'll write a piece where he explains how he wasn't really a supporter, and how the Dodgers were really a bad team all along. And next year, he'll write 27 more articles about how he hates Andruw Jones... and collect a paycheck for doing so. Wow. Just wow...

But for now, all that matters is that the Dodgers have Manny. They have a four game series starting tonight against the Diamondbacks, of which Manny will probably make it to play for the last three of the series.

And who knows, we might just make it out of this weekend in 1st place, and never look back as we push towards the playoffs.

Presently, that doesn't sound too bad.

And that's what I'll have to do.

I'll keep thinking about the Dodgers in the present... because it makes me a little sick thinking about the future.

The Three Things Hurting Our Offense

I believe there are three things that are hurting out offense.

1. Obviously, number one would be the struggling bats of the kids. They are inconsistent. Matt Kemp heats up one day, cools down the next few. Loney goes on streaks where he's racking up hits left and right before he begins to fade. Blake DeWitt, since having an amazing May, has fallen back to Earth and is now batting .281. Andre Ethier, who has been hovering around or above .300 the whole year has fallen into a bad slump, seeing his average drop 20 points since the beginning of June. Andy LaRoche, having just come up, will need a little time to adjust to playing in the majors again before he can start hitting consistently. Russell Martin has probably be the only consistent young player since his slow start in April. Since Martin raised his average about .300 on May 13th, it has stayed above .300 and for the most part fluctuated between .314 and .326. If the Dodgers want to start winning (and this is really the most important of the three things hurting our offense) they are going to need to get that consistency out of their young players. (On a side note, our veterans aren't doing much better. Jeff Kent, after having a pretty good week recently, has gone back to struggling. However, I feel if our young guns turn it around, Kent will be an afterthought. Martin, Kemp, and Loney playing on all cylinders could probably carry the team.)

2. The second thing hurting our offense is Juan Pierre. Well, really, what it is is lack of a good leadoff hitter. There are two parts to this point. People will argue Juan Pierre is a good leadoff hitter because of his speed. Well, unfortunately, speed will only do so much for you. You still need to be a good hitter. You also need to be able to hit the ball or draw some walks as a leadoff hitter, and preferably, more than once a game. When Rafael Furcal went down with his injury, he had a .448 On-base percentage. Juan Pierre currently has a .343 OBP. When we were winning with Furcal, he was got on base in every game he played in except one, and got on base two or more times, through walk or base hit, in 21 of his 32 games, including getting on base three or more times in nine of those games (three games, he reached base five times). Juan Pierre has failed to get on base in 14 of the 59 games he's player. He's reached base two or more times in 22 of the 59 games he's played, just one more than Furcal. Juan Pierre has gotten on base three or more times in eight of those games. For the most part, Pierre is giving the Dodgers one shot per game to drive him in, and for an offense that is struggling as it is, that is not going to help anything. So, obviously, Juan Pierre doesn't get on base as often as Rafael Furcal, that's part one. Part two of this point, is that Pierre doesn't get nearly as many extra base hits as Furcal did. Sure, Pierre will get a base hit, he wait a few pitches, then steal second, wait a few more, maybe steal third, or possibly be pushed over by the batter. The problem with this is you are forcing the number two batter to take a lot of pitches and you are now impacting his ability to get a hit. They are supposed to sit there and take pitches while Pierre works on figuring out the pitcher's move to first, then picks his time to run. Meanwhile, Andre Ethier or whoever is in the 2nd spot is now down 0-2 in the count. Pierre has just eight extra base hits on the season, all of them doubles. Rafael Furcal had 19 extra base hits before he was hurt (12 doubles, two triples, and five home runs). The value of extra base hits is such because it allows the next batter to wait on a pitch they want to hit, not be forced to take pitches so the runner can get into scoring position. And while you don't expect a lead-off hitter to be a big time homerun hitter, sometimes, it's nice to just get an easy run. Juan Pierre hasn't hit a homerun since September 18th, 2006. Finally, Juan Pierre has been caught stealing (or picked off) six times in 32 stolen base attempts. For a guy who deals mainly in speed, getting caught that many times is pretty bad. Juan Pierre isn't nearly the leadoff hitter that Furcal is and until Furcal gets back, or Pierre plays to Furcal's level, we are going to have some issues.

3. The third thing hurting our offense is simple: Mark Sweeney. Yes, I know he's not really in the everyday line-up and has had only 51 at-bats all year, but he's only got six hits in those at-bats. He can't run, he can't really play defense, so why is he around? Some have said it's because he provides a veteran presence in the clubhouse. That's interesting, I've heard about older players who are veteran presences in the clubhouse... I believe their called "coaches." If I was in management, I would politely ask Mark Sweeney if he would like to retire and join the coaching staff, that way, he can still be a veteran presence. If he still wants to play, release him and let him try and find a job elsewhere, but just not here. He's taking up a roster spot from someone like Terry Tiffee or John Lindsey who deserve to be here by now. He's also taking at-bats. I would have taken almost anyone in the DH role yesterday but him.

The worst part about all this is that aside from the third point, the other two aren't fixable yet. Furcal looks like he might be out longer than originally thought (possibly to July now) and Pierre shows no signs of getting miraculously better. The kids will probably continue to remain inconsistent until they mature to be the hitters a lot of us feel they can be. Until then, we can just grin and bear it and keep the small hope that Arizona is only 5.5 games ahead and we've got about another 100 to go.