---
How would you say the divorce proceedings between Frank and Jamie
McCourt have impacted the Dodgers' spending this winter? Have you been asked --
by Frank McCourt, by Major League Baseball or by anyone else -- not to take on
major long-term contracts this winter?
Our baseball and business decisions have not been impacted by the
proceedings. Neither [General Manager] Ned [Colletti] nor I have been asked by
anyone to limit long-term liabilities.
Maybe it's the conspiracy
theorist skeptic in me, but
I'd sure rather hear "are not limiting" than "have not been
asked by anyone to limit" future obligations. But this line is nothing
new. Remember that Mannion has implied that the divorce wouldn't affect the
club's spending until 2011.
So how would you explain to skeptical fans why the Dodgers are not
in on any of the best free agents?
Ned has demonstrated a fantastic ability to read the talent
market. We made back-to-back NLCS appearances for the first time in three
decades as a result of Ned's ability to make the right acquisitions at the
right time. We want the same thing our fans want, a team that can compete for a
world championship year in and year out, and we've been in that position for
the last two seasons. We expect that to continue.
This one sort of stings, right? I mean, yes, the Dodgers have been
in as good a position as a fan can ask to win a championship each of the last
two seasons. But the acquisitions which Mannion considers vital to those
opportunities came at extraordinarily out-of-whack costs. Namely, Colletti gave
up Carlos Santana for 233 league-average plate appearances from Casey Blake.
Santana, as you likely know, is one of the best prospects in baseball.
And though Blake was a Dodger during one of the more remarkable
stretch runs in recent years, he was hardly a driving factor of the team's
success. The perception that he was, however, led to a 3-year, $17.5 million
contract extension for the already 35-year-old
Blake. The Dodgers will be paying him $5.25 million as a 37-year-old, and then
another $1.25 million in 2012 just to make him go away. Granted, he had an
improbably good 2009 campaign--as in career-year good--but it's hard to see his
sustaining that level of play for one more season, let alone two. Extending
Blake also closed the door on--
--Josh Bell, who became expendable. And indeed, Bell was expended
in July, when the Dodgers dealt Bell, one of their best prospects, to Baltimore
for 27.2 innings of George Sherrill. Let's not forget: the Dodgers won the West
by three games, and that includes a fairly ridiculous September swoon. While
arguing that Blake made the difference in 2008, when the Dodgers made the
playoffs by two games, is at least plausible,
the 2009 team didn't need Sherrill in the least.
I should quit this rant now--there's something powerful to be said
about making whatever moves necessary to put a playoff team in even better
position to win the October lottery. I get it. But the reality is that such
future-foreclosing moves get a free pass if the team wins the World Series. If
the team doesn't, the moves are fair game. That's how this works, mostly. So
while we're patting Ned on the back for these sorts of moves, let's not forget
how dramatically he's mortgaged the future in the process.
I'd better run one more Q-and-A before I go off on the Wolf
non-offer...oh boy...Shaikin beat me to it:
[Shaikin runs through a long bullet-point list of examples of the
Dodgers' financial corner-cutting over the last few years, including the Wolf
non-offer. Seriously, people, go click the link and check this out. In fact, here's
the link again. There's stuff in there I didn't even know about.]
For example, with Wolf, this is a very complex economy. Folks were
building five-year strategic plans a long time ago. They're now into five-month
strategic plans. So to take a guy and say, we're going to offer him
arbitration, and put yourself in a position where you may have been able to
acquire a similar pitcher for less money later on, isn't prudent use of a civic
asset.
Oh dear Lord. "A similar pitcher for less money later
on." A similar pitcher. For less money. Later on.
Really, Dennis? What in the world are your criteria?
"Breathes oxygen?" "Possesses knowledge of baseball?"
"Can grow a wicked goatee?"
Look around!
A similar pitcher.
This might be easiest: here's an all-inclusive list of pitchers
with as many 2009 innings as Randy Wolf with a better K/BB ratio. I know that's
some corner-cutting of my own, but hey, it's a down economy.
Halladay, Haren, Vazquez, Greinke, Verlander, Lee, Lincecum,
Wainwright, Shields, Hernandez, and Sabathia.
Um, yeah. That's it. So "a similar pitcher" is one who
is arguably in no lower than the third-tier of all Major League starters. I
mean, look at that list. Halladay, Greinke, Lee, Lincecum, Hernandez, and
Sabathia pretty much define the top shelf. The other guys are studs in their
own right. And what else strikes you about that list? Not a single guy is available. Not for anything the Dodgers can
reasonably offer, anyway.
But you know what I'm doing here, right?
Joel Pineiro had a slightly better K/BB ratio than Wolf and
accounted for one fewer out on the season. He is "a similar player."
For less money.
This is where it gets fun. I'm not an expert on the arbitration
process, but what would Wolf have received? $8 million? $10 million? $12
million? And that on a one-year commitment to a player who, according to
Fangraphs, was worth $13.6 million last year.
And of course, he wasn't going to accept arbitration.
Later on.
Later on? When is later on? After Pineiro, the free agent starting
pitching market plummets to the take-a-chance guys like Bedard, Martinez, and
Sheets and the innings-eaters like Garland and Padilla. Similar to Randy Wolf,
they are not.
My lengthiness alarm is pounding through my skull as I type. And I
know you're here for divorce stuff. But I feel like Mannion's 'similar player,
less money, later on' thinking deserves treatment. Which, speaking of, can also
be found here (True
Blue L.A.) and here (Dodger
Thoughts). And if you have some of your own, please link it in the comments.
I'll leave you with one last quote from Mannion in response to a
Shaikin follow-up about Wolf and the cst of the draft picks the Dodgers would
have received when he signed elsewhere. Now, I'm warning you in advance, Mannion backed off this statement,
and what I am doing is cherry-picking in its purest form. But still, he said
this to a reporter. That makes him accountable:
Those millions that are potentially in play, they can manifest
themselves where the opportunity is. If the opportunity is in buying more
portable concession stands, then that's what you do.
Worse than Jamie's Manny-or-the-kids gaffe, right?
---
Tomorrow: my warmest holiday wishes and some site news.
---
Posts
