So, the Dodgers have made another crappy offer to Manny Ramirez. By offering him a one year deal (worth a hefty $25 million) and a 2nd year option worth $20 million, the Dodgers are prepared next season to put themselves and their fans in the same position we've been in this entire offseason. Once again, we'll be forced to endure the uncertainty of whether or not we'll have Manny, and, hence, a chance to compete.
I don't get it. Right now, along with Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez is the best hitter in the game. Because he's in his mid 30's, are those skills simply going to dissolve that rapidly? They might, I suppose, but they won't. Not with a player of his caliber and health. The evil Scott Boras has insisted on Manny having the option of becoming a free agent again at the end of the year. So, he's gonna pull the same crap he pulled on us with JD Drew. Why would McCourt allow that? Hasn't Manny more than proven he's worthy of a 3 year deal? Is it really the economy that's keeping the super wealthy McCourts from extending that offer to one of the greatest pure hitters who's ever played the game? I doubt it. Is it the shenanigans Manny pulled in Boston? So what? The fans love him here and they deserve some piece of mind. Aren't the 3.5 million fans who show up every year, win or lose, worth the consideration of not having to be placed on the Manny roller coaster again?
Okay, so let's assume Boras and Manny accept the offer. We have Manny for this year, but we still have no pitching because no one in the Dodgers front office found it necessary to make offers to CC Sabathia or AJ Burnett or Derek Lowe or make a deal for Jake Peavy. Our 5th starter right now is Schmidt/Vargas/Milton/Estes/Troncoso. In other words, we don't have one. (I'd make it young James McDonald's job to lose) The Giants, who refused to get in a bidding war for Manny's services, have little or no hitting. But boy, do they have pitching! Had they signed Manny, it would've guranteed them the division in '09. So do they now cancel each other out and the Diamondbacks win the West? Maybe. I still like the Giants to win it because of their pitching. But having Manny at least gives the Blue a fighting chance. Still, shhlubs like Matt Kemp, Russell Martin and Andre Ethier are going to need to hit. (The fact that Martin wants to honor his mom by having his jersey read "J. Martin" - his mother's maiden name is Jeanne - bugs me. Just say "hi mom" when you look in the camera)
The O Dog. Orlando Hudson could turn out to be a great sign for the Dodgers. He brings a lot to the clubhouse. He's a class act, a great guy and great teammate. He could also hit like hell when he's not hurt and he plays a mean second base. However, the Hudson signing is too bad for young Blake DeWitt, who I absolutely believe is going to be a great Major Leaguer. Frankly, I would prefer Blake over Blake (Dewitt over Casey) at third base. I like Casey Blake, but I like DeWitt better and I think he's ready. A platoon? Might not be a bad idea. (I have no idea why they gave Casey Blake, who strikes out a ton and can't hit to right field, a multi year deal) But having Hudson gives the Dodgers a nasty table setting with Furcal and Hudson getting the lineup going. Then, the specter of Manny, whether he hits 3rd or clean-up, looms in the hearts of opposing pitchers. Lot of pressure on Ethier and James Loney this year. Someone's going to need to be a left handed compliment to Manny in the middle of that lineup.
And so, the Spring has sprung. Here we go. More soon, including my take on the World Baseball Classic. In a couple of weeks, my predictions for '09.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
LA Times In Frank's Pocket?
Hmmm. It seems the LA Times refuse to print anymore of my letters knocking Dodgers owner, Frank McCourt. My belief that the success of the Dodgers is not McCourt's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eight priority remains firmly intact. Here are the three letters my nom de plumes and I composed last week:
Not only is Frank McCourt's one year, $25 million offer an insult to Manny, it's an insult to the fans. To rub salt in the wound, they're talking about replacing Manny with Adam Dunn or Tony Abreu. With their extremely inexperienced pitching staff and no Manny to offset that glaring flaw, the Dodgers will surely finish last in the NL West. This is the moment of truth, Frank. You're either serious about giving the 3.5 million fans who show up every year a winner or you're nothing more than a stingy, attention-seeking jackass who's real purpose is to make a prophet while promoting yourself as a great philanthropist. If you're the former, you'll offer Manny a 3 year deal at around $70 million with an option for a 4th year. If you don't, you're the latter. It's that simple.
- Steve Freeman
McCourt paid nothing, zilch, the null set for Manny last year and he got so much in return. So, his latest offer to this savior is... a one year deal??? Manny will be a Met or a Cardinal, or, even worse, a Giant, with a three or four year deal because McCourt knows the fans will still show up. They'll pay good money to watch Adam Dunn or Tony Abreu strike out with Furcal on second and two outs. They'll pay good money to watch Matt Kemp chase a pitch in the dirt or run them out of another inning. Forget the evil agenda of the McCourts. Fans, why are YOU going to continue buying his product? You're like 3.5 million obsequious lemmings. Where's your dignity? If McCourt doesn't care enough about you to bring Manny back, simply stop coming to the ballpark.
- Sneaky Sims
By making sure all their charitable donations were known by all, the McCourts basically lobbied for "Power Couple of the Year." They want everyone to know how wonderful they are with their money, except, of course, Manny Ramirez and the millions of fans who actually care how the team does. Can you imagine a Yankees or Red Sox owner who would be satisfied with a five and out in the ALCS? I blame it all on commissioner, Bud Selig. He should never have approved their ownership.
- Zax Twitchell
Simply put, if McCourt wants the Dodgers to win, he finds a way to sign Manny. If he doesn't care whether or not they win, he lets Manny sign elsewhere. Of course, now that we've reacquired the great Randy Wolf, it's going to be extremely difficult to keep the Blue from repeating as Western Division Champs in '09. That is, if medicority, for which Wolf is the personification, is the element that ultimately decides the winner. Randy fkn' Wolf??? You have GOT to be kidiing me. We needed a top flight starter to replace Derek Lowe and another one to replace "Bad" Penny and we get Randy Wolf and Claudio Vargas. Happy times are ahead for opposing hitters. I think even with Manny, unless Clayton Kershaw becomes the next Tim Lincecum and John McDonald breaks into the rotation and wins 17, the Dodgers are going to struggle to win 81 games.
Not only is Frank McCourt's one year, $25 million offer an insult to Manny, it's an insult to the fans. To rub salt in the wound, they're talking about replacing Manny with Adam Dunn or Tony Abreu. With their extremely inexperienced pitching staff and no Manny to offset that glaring flaw, the Dodgers will surely finish last in the NL West. This is the moment of truth, Frank. You're either serious about giving the 3.5 million fans who show up every year a winner or you're nothing more than a stingy, attention-seeking jackass who's real purpose is to make a prophet while promoting yourself as a great philanthropist. If you're the former, you'll offer Manny a 3 year deal at around $70 million with an option for a 4th year. If you don't, you're the latter. It's that simple.
- Steve Freeman
McCourt paid nothing, zilch, the null set for Manny last year and he got so much in return. So, his latest offer to this savior is... a one year deal??? Manny will be a Met or a Cardinal, or, even worse, a Giant, with a three or four year deal because McCourt knows the fans will still show up. They'll pay good money to watch Adam Dunn or Tony Abreu strike out with Furcal on second and two outs. They'll pay good money to watch Matt Kemp chase a pitch in the dirt or run them out of another inning. Forget the evil agenda of the McCourts. Fans, why are YOU going to continue buying his product? You're like 3.5 million obsequious lemmings. Where's your dignity? If McCourt doesn't care enough about you to bring Manny back, simply stop coming to the ballpark.
- Sneaky Sims
By making sure all their charitable donations were known by all, the McCourts basically lobbied for "Power Couple of the Year." They want everyone to know how wonderful they are with their money, except, of course, Manny Ramirez and the millions of fans who actually care how the team does. Can you imagine a Yankees or Red Sox owner who would be satisfied with a five and out in the ALCS? I blame it all on commissioner, Bud Selig. He should never have approved their ownership.
- Zax Twitchell
Simply put, if McCourt wants the Dodgers to win, he finds a way to sign Manny. If he doesn't care whether or not they win, he lets Manny sign elsewhere. Of course, now that we've reacquired the great Randy Wolf, it's going to be extremely difficult to keep the Blue from repeating as Western Division Champs in '09. That is, if medicority, for which Wolf is the personification, is the element that ultimately decides the winner. Randy fkn' Wolf??? You have GOT to be kidiing me. We needed a top flight starter to replace Derek Lowe and another one to replace "Bad" Penny and we get Randy Wolf and Claudio Vargas. Happy times are ahead for opposing hitters. I think even with Manny, unless Clayton Kershaw becomes the next Tim Lincecum and John McDonald breaks into the rotation and wins 17, the Dodgers are going to struggle to win 81 games.
Kent Justify It
Yeah, I think Jeff Kent was a very good ballplayer. Yeah, I know he was one of the best htting 2nd baseman ever to play the game - most homers from that position, etc. He was a gamer and I hated him when he was a Giant and loved him when he was a Dodger. He won one MVP award and he had some very solid years. Still, there's a certian intangible something that sometimes separates a player with a great career and a great player who's worthy of entrance into the Hall and I'm still not sure if Jeff qualifies in my book. This, I admit, is most peculiar since, if you were to ask me about Hall of Fame 2nd basemen, Ryne Sandberg and Joe Morgan, I would agree with their entrance into that hallowed institution without hesitation. Yet, Kent's offensive career numbers are higher than both Ryno's and Joe's in almost every offensive category. So, why are Ryno and Joe Morgan Hall of Famers and the jury is still out on Kent? As far as intanglibles, impact is definitely one reason. I feel like Ryno and Morgan had more impact on their respective teams with the exception of Kent's 6 years with the Giants, when he was hitting in front of and behind Barry Bonds. Sandberg batted 2nd much of his career, but he did have the protection of Andre Dawson for many of those years. Morgan played for a poor Astros team, and then the Big Red Machine. For his era, his numbers were stellar. There's also no doubt that Ryno and Morgan were revered by their fans and Kent simply was not, due to his surly demeanor (which I never minded at all).
Then, of course, one tangible reason. Ryno won the Gold Glove 9 times! Every year from '83 - '91, Ryno was honored with his excellence in the field. Morgan won 5 Gold Gloves. Kent won zero. Perhaps it's not fair to deny Kent entry into the Hall just because he wasn't a great fielder and just because he wasn't as beloved or because played in a different era. But I'm not sure Hall of Fame entrance should be based solely on having the best stats for that one position. A lot of writers do. I think if Kent was an outfileder or a 1st baseman and you looked at his final numbers, he'd have little chance of getting in. Yes, the middle infield is a more demanding position and it used to be filled by tiny little guys like Dustin Pedroia and David Eckstein. But not so much anymore. So, I'm just not sure that rationale holds the weight it used to.
On Kent's side, one can argue that he accomplished his impressive offensive numbers without the benefit of steroids. As the news of ARod's positive 2003 steroid test comes out today, maybe that should be a factor in determining eligibility for all borderline Hall of Famers during the doping era. My guess is, Kent will eventually get in. First ballot? We'll see. Hall of Fame or not, I will miss Jeff Kent and I appreciated him both as a player and as a Dodger. Thanks, Jeff, for always playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - hard. Enjoy your retirement and your family.
Then, of course, one tangible reason. Ryno won the Gold Glove 9 times! Every year from '83 - '91, Ryno was honored with his excellence in the field. Morgan won 5 Gold Gloves. Kent won zero. Perhaps it's not fair to deny Kent entry into the Hall just because he wasn't a great fielder and just because he wasn't as beloved or because played in a different era. But I'm not sure Hall of Fame entrance should be based solely on having the best stats for that one position. A lot of writers do. I think if Kent was an outfileder or a 1st baseman and you looked at his final numbers, he'd have little chance of getting in. Yes, the middle infield is a more demanding position and it used to be filled by tiny little guys like Dustin Pedroia and David Eckstein. But not so much anymore. So, I'm just not sure that rationale holds the weight it used to.
On Kent's side, one can argue that he accomplished his impressive offensive numbers without the benefit of steroids. As the news of ARod's positive 2003 steroid test comes out today, maybe that should be a factor in determining eligibility for all borderline Hall of Famers during the doping era. My guess is, Kent will eventually get in. First ballot? We'll see. Hall of Fame or not, I will miss Jeff Kent and I appreciated him both as a player and as a Dodger. Thanks, Jeff, for always playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - hard. Enjoy your retirement and your family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)