I just wanted to whip this graphic up real quick, because it was made official that the Dodgers just let Manny go to the White Sox on a pure waiver claim.
The black lines indicate either of the two possible actions the Dodgers should have taken with Manny this weekend. Obviously, there's risk and reward for either path, as designated by red circles (for negative outcomes) and green circles (for positive ones).
The blue line indicates what actually happened this weekend.
As you can see: the best of both worlds, really.
Look, I understand the player the Dodgers were likely to get back wasn't going to be a top prospect. At this point though, I just wanted something tangible for Manny.
Sure, the $4 million or so in salary relief is nice, in theory... assuming, of course, the money goes back into the team. But, at this point, with these owners (who currently sit in a Los Angeles courtroom arguing over money and control of this team), then who really knows?
There are a couple things I do know, though.
First, and foremost, there is no reason for Hiroki Kuroda, Ted Lilly, Octavio Dotel, George Sherrill, Scott Podsednik, and maybe even Casey Blake to remain on this team. There may be other players that I am forgetting, but these six strike me as the most important ones. (Looking at the roster, I think the guy I'm missing is Vicente Padilla, who can't be moved while on the DL, which is really a shame because his stock was so high earlier this season.)
With Manny gone, whether the front office wants to believe it or not, they've thrown in the towel on this season. As such, there's no reason to continue paying veterans with expiring contracts to help this team to a 4th place, .500 finish. Sell. Sell them all. Get whatever you can. But as the final, final trade deadline approaches tomorrow, none of these six players (five if you don't include Blake who has another year on his contract) should be on the roster.
Here's the second thing I know.
Joe Torre, the manager everyone in the media seems to adore for his ability to win, was managing a .500 team to a 2nd place finish in 2008. That was before Manny came along. Suddenly, the Dodgers start winning. Then, the Dodgers make the playoffs. And then, for the first time in 20 years, the Dodgers win a playoff series.
Now, it's 2010. Joe Torre is still here. There's that constant. Manny isn't. He mostly wasn't. (Though when he was, the Dodgers were 10 games over .500.) It's starting to look like crazy speak to even consider contending for the playoffs at this point.
So, you tell me who is really more important to this team.
Here's the third thing I know.
Ignoring the first five games of a season (when numbers like batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging can fluctuate like crazy due to the low amount of at-bats), Manny has never, not once, had his OPS dip below .800 in his tenure with the Dodgers.
For all the drama about steroids, and injuries, and lack of hustle or heart or whatever similar crap, Manny produced.
For all the hate that Manny received from main stream media (see Bill Plaschke, amongst many others), who turned and praised gritty guys like Juan Pierre, steroids or not, Manny always out-hit them.
Look, I'll admit it. When we acquired Manny, I was not thrilled. One, because we gave up Andy LaRoche (who I still like, despite the fact his career is slowly dying in Pittsburgh). And two, I was real worried he might give up on us (this mind you, in the same season Andruw Jones already had).
Well, now that the Manny era is over, I can say this: He never gave up.
The trade was definitely worth it. Resigning him was absolutely worth it. He made mistakes, sure. He was injured, sure. But up until the very last pitch of his very last at-bat, Manny never gave up on the team or the fans.
He showed up. And he produced.
Well, the week started out nice, didn't it? Sweeping the Brewers, coming back to take the first game from the Rockies. Things were looking good. And then, well, let's just jump into this...
So, in response to a Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness post about what to do with Manny as he came off the DL (play him to raise his value and trade him), I commented this:"I’m with you. I’ve been saying we should’ve sold for a while now. But, just to play Devil’s advocate and throw out a crazy hypothetical here…
Manny gets activated today. He comes back on fire, circa 2008. The offense is rejuvenated. The pitching is still solid. They win 8 of their next 9 and find themselves in 3rd place, four games out of the Wildcard at the start of August 31st. (Or Dodgers split the next two, Manny is activated Tuesday, Dodgers win next 6, etc.)
I mean, I understand there’s about a .76% chance of such a thing happening but this has been my one problem with selling: (and, this is probably because I’m looking at it through the rose colored glasses of a fan) but 8.0 games out in the Wildcard (and not totally in the race) is just one good hotstreak away from suddenly being in the thick of the race.
It’s dangerous thinking, akin to not knowing when to fold in poker, but I’m just wondering how close to the Wildcard leader would we have to be before we decide we shouldn’t sell?"
Some called me crazy. And I can't blame them. It was pretty preposterous. But damn, after Friday night's game, I was starting to more psychic than crazy. The Dodgers had won four in a row, and found themselves 4.5 games back in the Wildcard. They looked like a different team. The hitting was back. The bullpen was back. The pitching was still good.
Then, suddenly, and without warning, suck.
Ok, so, there was warning. Like, when on Saturday, Manny was benched for the third game in a row, for reasons not entirely clear. Joe Torre mumbled something about Scott Podsednik's energy or whatever. Unsurprisingly, Podsednik's energy and the Dodger offense scored one run through eight innings (before Rod Barajas hit a two-run homerun in the 9th to make the final score not look so one-sided).
Or, Sunday, when, apparently, everyone in Dodger management gave up and offered no explanation for Manny's absence from a 4th straight game. Just: he's not starting.
And then things got weird...
Manny came in to pinch hit in the 6th inning of Sunday's game, with the bases loaded and the Dodgers down 6, and he took a called strike on the outside corner. Manny, who has been playing professional baseball since 1991 (ie. He knows that arguing balls and strikes gets you automatically kicked out) then turned and fiercely argued balls and strikes with home plate ump Gary Cederstrom. He was kicked out.
I still don't know what to make of this.
I said on Twitter, I don't want to try and get into another person's head, least of all, Manny Ramirez. But, come on, did Manny really feel that emotional about a questionable first pitch called strike?
Or, did Manny, feeling like the end of his LA playing career was inevitable, and upset with his recent usage, decide to deliver one final 'eff you to Dodgers management? It's not unheard of. I can tell you this, though...
It only makes me like Manny even more.
Yeah, maybe it screwed the Dodgers at an important point within the game (though, let's be honest, the season is, for almost all intents and purposes, dead anyway). And yes, if intentional, it was a childish and unprofessional move.
But, you know what? I don't care.
Manny, if he intentionally got himself kicked out of a game, did to Joe Torre and Ned Colletti what most of us fans have wanted to do all year.
Whether it be the shortsighted, overpaying, and meaningless trades that Ned Colletti made, or the terrible roster decisions, almost thoughtless starting lineups, and horrific bullpen use that Joe Torre has made a staple of this season, I (like I'm guessing many other fans) have wanted to say, for lack of better terms, 'eff you to Dodgers management almost all season.
Manny, by getting kicked out after one pitch, essentially told management, "Screw you guys, I'm going home." (in this case, home = the Chicago White Sox.)
Maybe I'm making too big of a deal about this. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I can't be 100% sure that what I'm saying is what really went down. But, again, I don't care. I love it. Manny's a folk hero.
Either way, here's what I am sure of: this offense, it's not the same without Manny. That's not to say they can't score runs without Manny, or that with Manny, they are guaranteed to not slump, but the feel is different.
The offense with Manny is a well oiled machine. Without him, it feels like grinding gears.
So, if you want to trade Manny away, do it. It should have been done a month ago, when the returning package would have been much better. But if you are going to trade Manny, don't stop there. Trade Kuroda, Lilly, Sherrill, Dotel, Podsednik, Blake. Trade them all. There's no need for them. We aren't going anywhere, especially without a Manny in the lineup, so why keep these pieces?
I wish there was less indecisiveness. I wish there was more critical thinking. I wish there wasn't so much deceit on what goes on behind the scenes. I wish there weren't so many bad decisions.
I wish we had different people in charge.
Basically, what I'm saying is:
'Eff you, management.
So, I skipped the Week 19 Retrospective... I was busy, and the Dodgers sucked that week. They lost four of six, hitting, then not hitting, then hitting and blowing games, and not hitting again, then not hitting or pitching.
Then they started this week by blowing a game on Monday in Atlanta. Then won two of three against Colorado. Then lost two of three to Cincinnati. So, 3-4 overall. Better than 2-4, yet still slowly killing me.
The season is pretty much over, but there was a big news story this week, so let's get to it.
Vin Scully Will Return
And thank God. I was really starting to worry we were going to get a 200% increase in games called by Steve Lyons, and that is really more Steve Lyons than anyone should have to bear.
Still, when word spread that Vin would make an announcement on his future on Sunday, a lot of people started to worry that he was going to call it a career.
Again, he's not, so crisis averted, but it really got me thinking: we need some sort of contingency plan for when Vin does decide to retire.
In an ideal world, when Vin decides he doesn't want to travel anymore, we just pipe in the tv feed to his house, let him call games from home, and then broadcast it on a slight delay. I have my doubts that he would go for such a thing, but I can dream.
More realistically, I kind of hope Vin finds a young broadcaster, and takes him under his wing and mentors him, the way Red Barber did for Vin.
I want someone who has grown up and learned under Vin, not a guy like Steve Lyons, who is only here because he lost his national tv job for saying stupid things. I want someone who is going to emulate Vin, not someone who is going to crack jokes all game about his 19 career homeruns or whatever other stupid thing he did during his playing career.
I know we can't have Vin call games forever, but having him play a big part in who replaces him would, for me, go a long way.
Until then, we have to just enjoy what time we do have left with him.
You know, in a vacuum, going 4-3 in a week, splitting a four game series with the best team in your league and then winning two games out of three in a weekend series might seem like a good week.
It's not a bad week, for sure. But in the scenario we find ourselves in, another week has been ticked off the season, and the Dodgers have only moved one game closer to the division leading Padres, and 1.5 games closer to the wild card leading Giants. Couple this with the fact that the Dodgers will now play seven games on the road (three against Philadelphia and four against Atlanta) and well ... you kinda wish there wasn't so much space between the Dodgers and the playoff race leaders.
Sorry to be a downer.
Alright, couple more things.
Unfortunate Timing
I had the feeling these trade deadline deals would come back to bite us in the future. I just didn't know it would be the following week.
What I'm saying is:
Don't you just hate it when you trade away your most promising catching prospect (one who is nearly ready for the majors) for a very average outfielder and then your starting catcher gets hurt and goes on the DL with a season ending injury and you now have to platoon at catcher for the rest of the year with a 41 year old coming off back surgery and a 29 year old career backup catcher with almost no power?
I know I sure do.
The End of An (Awful, Awful) Era
You know, I have to be honest, when I woke up this morning, one of the last things I expected was to learn that Garret Anderson had been Designated for Assignment.
Don't get me wrong. It's good news. In fact, I had a permanent smile on my face for a good half hour after hearing about the move. I'm really not kidding. I was explaining it to people who don't care about baseball and smiling the whole time.
But, it was just odd timing.
I mean, what exactly was it that finally forced Joe Torre's hand? Anderson didn't even play in yesterday's game. And we won that game. You'd think Anderson would have gotten the boot after another 0-4 spot start, or a pinch-hit GIDP to end the game or something. Nope, the Dodgers win and Anderson watches from the bench, then gets Designated for Assignment the next day.
And the decision was made in mid-August, no less, months longer than should have taken. Anderson had hung on this long, I thought for sure he was going to reach the safety plateau of expanded rosters in September.
But, nope. Anderson is gone and whatever the reason, I'll take it. Everyone knew he was done. Fans most of all, but the coaches had to know, too. Garret Anderson probably knew. It was no doubt tough on him to struggle so badly this year.
So, this is farewell, then. So long, Garret. Sorry for ripping on you so much this year, but in fairness, you were terrible.
When saying goodbye, it's important to remember the good times we had. Or, in Anderson's case, that one good time.
So, I'm writing this week recap up now, before the game today for two reasons. One, if I wait until after the game, it tends to mess up my entire night. Two, regardless of whether the Dodgers win today's game or not, this is already a sucky week.
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.
After losing four straight out of the All-Star break, it was hard for the Dodgers to not have a better week.
Still, the Dodgers found themselves winning only four of seven this week, and in all honesty, they were probably lucky to win that many.
The offense has been seriously struggling post All-Star break. Coming off a series in St. Louis where the Dodger scored a combined 9 runs in four games, the Dodgers had run outputs of 2, 5, 2, 2, 1, 2, and 1 this week (and they didn't win the game they scored five runs in).
Luckily for the Dodgers, the starters bailed them out. Chad Billingsley went 9 scoreless innings in a win against the Giants on Wednesday, Kuroda went 8 scoreless in a win against the Mets on Thursday, and Kershaw went 8 scoreless in a win against the Mets today.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to finish the week over .500. I'm happy the starters are pitching so well. But if the offense doesn't start to turn around, we are going to be in trouble.
Alright, enough complaining. Few more quick topics to touch on this week.
Credit Where Credit Is Due
I've ripped Vicente Padilla in the past on this blog. And truthfully, I'm still not a huge fan of his.
But I can't deny how good he's been since coming off the DL. He's had some pretty good success this season, due to things like having a career year in both K/9 (8.00) and BB/9 (1.97), and mixing that with some good luck (career low in BABIP). Is this kind of production sustainable? Eh, probably not. But as long as Padilla continues to put up numbers like a 0.98 ERA in four starts in July (22 Ks in 27.2 IP), I'm going to enjoy the ride.
Reality Check Week
This is a big week coming up. I mean, take a look at the upcoming schedule. First, the Dodgers are going to take on the division leading Padres for three games. Then, they'll follow that up by taking on the Wild Card leading Giants.
On top of all this, the trade deadline is Saturday.
I'm going to go ahead and say that by this point next week, we're going to have a pretty good idea of how the rest of the season is going to shape up.
That's not to say the Dodgers will definitively be in or out of the race by next Sunday (especially because after Sunday, the Dodgers start a four game set against the Padres again), all I'm saying is, we're probably going to have a good idea of how the season will unfold.
Frankly, I'm a little worried about this week, but at the same time, I'm excited. I want to know how this whole thing is going to work out.
Alright, I'm back on a working computer. Still, I'm going to be skipping the Dodgers Retrospective this week for a few reasons.
One, it was a half week. Two, it was a terrible half week. Three, a big topic I was going to discuss was Broxton anyway, so this post makes the Retrospective moot.
Jumping right into it, let's recap: Broxton blew a game yesterday. In turn, the Dodger fanbase reacted in a calm demeanor, showing their full support for a good young player.
Oh wait. (Credit, obviously, to Memories of Kevin Malone)
Ok, so, Dodger fans freaked out. And I can't blame fans for being angry. The Dodgers were trying to avoid a four game sweep while San Diego continues to win and separate themselves from the pack. This was a tough game to lose.
But here's where we begin to have a problem.
We need to be able to distinguish between being upset and misinformed complaining.
Be mad that we lost the game. Again, tough game to lose. Be upset with Broxton for the game. He was wild and ineffective. It happens and you are allowed to be upset about it.
That's fine. But. But...
Don't start spewing nonsense about replacing Broxton. Stop it. Seriously. You look foolish because really, it's nonsense.
In some form or another, here's what always seems to happen whenever I have a discussion in which I end up defending Broxton against a detractor.
Person: "Broxton sucks."
Me: "Broxton is one of the better closers in the game."
Person: "Broxton blows too many big games."
Me: "Everyone blows games. Everyone gives up runs, that's why there's such thing as ERA."
Person: "I don't like Broxton. He's not a major league closer."
And here's where misinformed complainers always get caught:
Me: "Ok, who would you replace him with?"
Now, the person is always caught with this question because there is no good answer to this question.
I mean, that doesn't stop the other person from going: "I don't know!" or "It's not my job, I don't get paid to figure that stuff out!" which are both versions of "There is no good answer to that question!"
But, ok, fine, you haven't had the time to research and make the calls into other GMs, so you don't have a list of candidates. If you want to play this game though, misinformed complainers, you should know this: all but one pitcher in baseball with 10 or more save opportunities this year has blown a game.
(Long tangent: the one pitcher is John Axford of the Milwaukee Brewers ... don't you dare pretend to tell me you know who that is. Axford is 11 for 11 in save opportunities, but then you should probably also know this: because of the flawed way saves are kept, Axford's 11 for 11 doesn't explain the fact that in five of those opportunities, Axford surrendered an earned run. He's been lucky enough to have his leads be larger than one run at the time and avoid the blown save. Oh, and by the way, Axford has given up the go ahead run while the game was tied on three separate occasions this year, so by no means is Axford the perfect closer.)
Point is, there isn't going to be a pitcher you can replace Broxton with who will satisfy you. Even the great Mariano Rivera, who I will happily admit is a superior pitcher to Broxton has blown two games this year.
These calls for Broxton's head are misinformed. You people are hoping that Ned Colletti will magically pull a pitcher out of his hat that throws a 102 fastball, a 93 slider, and a 79 curveball that drops a foot off the table at the last second. This pitcher has a 0.00 ERA, never blows a save, and can pitch 3 out of 4 days or not for a week but will remain sharp either way. That's a great thing to hope for, but this pitcher only exists in MLB 2k10 (and I know this because he's the closer on my Create-A-Team).
Here's where I'm guessing this problem stems from:
1. Unrealistic expectations.
Since Eric Gagne took over closing duties in 2002, Dodger fans haven't really know what it's like to not have a lights out closer. He dominated from 2002-2004 unlike any closer in history, at one point saving an unbelievable 84 games in 84 save opportunities. The whole "Game Over" era not only gave regular fans an unrealistic expectation of what to expect from a closer, but I suspect it brought on board many casual fans as well, who at that point only had "Game Over" Gagne as their image of what a closer should be.
2005 was a transitional year. Gagne was injured and Yhency Brazoban ended up leading the team in saves with 21, while holding down a 5.33 ERA. It was easy enough to dismiss the year as a throw away year.
But then 2006 comes around. Takashi Saito comes out of the blue to become one of the top closers in baseball over the next two seasons.
Broxton shares closer's duties with Saito in 2008, before fully taking over the job in 2009.
Now, what I'm suggesting is, from 2002-2007, with the exception of 2005, the Dodgers have had an extraordinary run of lights out closers. And, worse for Broxton, from two different closers.
Many Dodgers fans have come to expect that you can just replace one lights out closer with another like it's something that's easy to do, or that's been happening forever, for that matter. Gagne was here, he was great, he went away and got replaced with Saito, who was also great. Saito is gone, and has been replaced with Broxton. Why is Broxton not as great as Gagne was from 02-04 or Saito from 06-07?
We were supremely lucky to have such high quality closers for several years. That's not to say Broxton isn't high quality, but he will never convert 84 straight save opportunities in a row (I doubt anyone ever will), nor will Broxton probably ever post a 1.40 ERA (with a 0.72 WHIP) over an entire season like Saito did in 2007. Broxton might be able to have a similar season, but is not likely to have these types of numbers over the span of several seasons. It's not that seasons like that are unheard of, but to expect them from the same pitcher every year is ludicrous unless that pitcher is Mariano Rivera (a Hall of Famer).
The other part of this blame Broxton problem is this:
2. Emotionally charged losses
The blown game is probably the hardest game to lose other than maybe having Ken Griffey Jr. rob the game winning homerun in the 12th inning during the last game of the season, knocking you out of the playoffs ala "Little Big League". But, I digress.
Blown save losses are the most emotionally charged losses because you go from happiness to anger in the span of an inning.
If the starting pitcher gives up three runs in the 2nd inning, and those three runs turn out to be the difference in the game, there isn't much uproar. If the closer does it in the 9th, the fans have no time to think, they just blow a gasket.
Everyone remembers that Broxton blew the big game in the NLCS last year. No one seems to remember the save he converted in the 2-1 victory in that same series.
Conversely, everyone remembers that Vicente Padilla had an amazing start against the Phillies in the NLCS (that same 2-1 game, coincidentally) but no one seems to remember that when the Dodgers needed him to show up to avoid elimination in Game 5, he gave up 6 runs in three innings.
This isn't meant to bag on Padilla, who I must admit has been excellent since returning from the DL and deserves some acknowledgment from this blog at some point in the near future. No, this is simply meant to point out that people have a completely unbalanced, much more severe reaction to a later inning loss than a game lost in the first few innings.
So, what's the solution?
Here it is, for all of you misinformed complainers out there.
1. First, realize that Broxton is not as bad as you believe him to be. If I can't interest you in looking up his sabermetric stats like his xFIP, at least just know this: Broxton has made his way into 40 games this season and has only really negatively affected two (maybe a few others but if we are only considering games in which Broxton's actions have led to a direct loss, then two).
2. Realize there are not a lot of better options than Broxton this year, and that most of those better options are on teams that won't be giving them up anytime soon. You think the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Baltimore Orioles have the solution to your problem? Because they don't. Maybe the Yankees do, maybe the Braves do, but guess what? They are leading their divisions. They have no reason at all to send their closer to you.
3. And this is the important one. Take a deep breath.
It's a game. It's one game. It sucks to lose it and it's easy to overreact.
So don't. Calm down. Understand that games get blown, closers give up runs, and sometimes wins become losses.
I can assure you, this isn't the only time this has ever happened, nor will it be the last.
And I can assure you, you replace Jonathan Broxton with any other closer in the league and the previous statement isn't any less true.
Because the "perfect" closer you are looking for pitches for the J-City Demons and I've got no reason to send him your way.
The black lines indicate either of the two possible actions the Dodgers should have taken with Manny this weekend. Obviously, there's risk and reward for either path, as designated by red circles (for negative outcomes) and green circles (for positive ones).
