I hope everyone is doing well and surviving the election craziness with the post-election craziness. I decided, to lighten the mood, I would put together a few thoughts on the Dodgers recent moves and non-moves, for anyone who cares. If you disagree, hate me or are merely stupefied, feel free to move on to another blog. My feelings won’t be hurt. With that said, on with the show.
So Fangraphs came out with their usual prediction of Dodgers superiority. Gee, I wonder why geeks obsessed with Saber data would keep picking a team with a brain- (uggh) trust full of geeks obsessed with Saber data. Let me think about that for a moment. Ok, forget it.
The source is as suspect as you would think. If you agree with the obsession with data vs. reality, that’s all well and good. You are entitled to your opinion, and I mine. As hosts of one of the MLB Network Radio shows said the other day, Fangraphs has their opinions and they believe the Dodgers are the best team in baseball but unfortunately in reality games are not played on spreadsheets and real injuries and likely DL stints do matter. They said the Cubs don’t have these concerns, the Dodgers do. I’d also add, no matter what data you are looking at, you are either high or dumb to assume the Dodgers current pitching staff is championship quality.
I had a little back and forth with some folks recently who disagree and hold Fangraphs up as a Scientologist holds up L. Ron Hubbard’s work, and as you can imagine, that went nowhere. They insisted that “every analyst agrees” that the Dodgers are better than the Cubs and the favorite to win it all. I believe this was the same case made last year, but my main point of contention is that I listen to pretty much every show on MLB Network Radio, at some point during a week, and I have yet to hear anyone “agree” with Fangraphs assessment. In fact, I hear the opposite.
I hear a lot of questioning why Andrew Friedman and Farhan Zaidi would deal the same blue chip they planned for “baseball’s best second baseman”, Brian Dozier, in a deal for Logan Forsythe. As I’ve pointed out, the Dodgers had Dee Gordon, then had Howie Kendrick, then had José Peraza, and then Howie again and still found a way to have no second baseman, necessitating moving José De León for one.
I guess one could argue they solved all their problems if they added Dozier or even Ian Kinsler. But is it the same marked improvement getting Forsythe, a 30-year-old journeyman with a .255 career average and some question about his glove?
This is not to bash Forsythe, who I can see being an upgrade over Chase Utley and that bum who hit .190 but has nude photos apparently of the front office and therefore keeps making the roster, but is it worth passing on three guys we had and dealing a prospect that could have come in handy at some point either for the rotation or another deal – to get Forsythe?
Someone I heard referred to Forsythe as a kid. Umm, 30 is not a kid. In fact this morning the GM show on MLB Network Radio mocked how genius Tampa’s GM was to turn a 30 year old second baseman into an elite pitching prospect, age 24.
I am of the opinion, and I’ve said it many times, prospects are currency. This discussion is not about holding onto prospects, De León or most any other. I understand that a farm should ideally cultivate future big leaguers for your roster, as well as be used to deal for parts you might need. Holding onto every prospect is not to be applauded, it’s foolish. So a problem I have with the Dodgers front office is taking the slow boat in everything they do. Keep what you want, deal what you don’t. Surely even the Dodgers front office understands not each prospect will be a superstar. But perhaps, just maybe, you could deal some of them for useful parts – before their value is gone.
I have no real problem with dealing De León for Forsythe and again, suspect it will be some improvement over the mess at second base last season. That said, I don’t know if one can say it’s improvement over Dee, Peraza or even Howie (and in Howie’s defense, I say that meaning the longtime second base fixture Howie, not the utility fielding occasional player Friedman created last year).
My issue, or better, comment is that as always, the Dodgers seem to take the long route to everything. A guy like Theo Epstein comes in, with many fewer resources than Friedman inherited, and gets to work fast. Within a few years the team is completely made over and winning a championship. It’s not the time only, it’s the approach. Problems are fixed. With the Dodgers, it’s always breaking down what’s unnecessary to break down and trying something new. Money that can be spent on proven big leaguers instead paid to Cuban prospects. Aces dealt. Injury marred pitchers or AAAA nobodies acquired. It all just seems so unnecessarily exhausting.
I suspect if Theo had Dee, he would have kept him. If he felt Dee was a trade high candidate, and somehow he got Peraza, or wanted Howie, I think he would have done that. Friedman and his merry men had to go through 5-6 players to settle on Forsythe – the optimal word here is settle. They hoped to land Dozier, after all.
Again, no offense made to Forsythe, I suspect he will be a decent enough part, not spectacular, but decent. But it is terribly humorous (and sad) to see Friedman apologists spinning this as a genius move. They too wanted Dozier. Friedman made it seem like Dozier (he of the cold streaks that last a month) was the solution. The welcome mat was out, and then Forsythe is acquired. Not for less, mind you, but for the same prospect Dozier was targeted for.
The genius comedy comes from the spin then going to how De León wasn’t that good anyway. I have said many times that scouts have claimed De León was not the Pedro Martinez type many had crowed he was, but perhaps eventually a middle of the rotation starter. No one listened. Now when De León is dealt for Forsythe (why must it always be Tampa, by the way? And Oakland. They made a minor deal with Oakland this week as well – so embarrassing), the story is rewritten that Forsythe is one of the best players ever and De León was nothing special. Ho ho ho
So for whatever it’s worth, the Dodgers infield looks pretty much set. It’s a good infield – there, I said it. It’s got a superstar (Seager) and useful parts. The great depth falls off fast if anything happens to Turner or Forsythe but such is life. I would say the Dodgers infield is not an issue anymore, unless you start wondering about speed. The team’s foot speed and athleticism are still lacking, but then, Sabermetrics doesn’t care about that.
I am of the opinion the Dodgers are marginally better than they were in October, thanks to this trade. I was not impressed with the winter up until now, and I’m still not sure I can say I’m impressed. But, doing something more than retaining your own free-agents, is a start. I would temper anticipation by reminding loyalists that the division has improved and the cake walk the team enjoyed in the West last year might be harder to repeat. So, the question is – has enough been done to repeat as Western division champs, or go all the way, if such ideas are in your head.
I’d say the West is a dogfight with the Dodgers having a chance based mostly on the health of the rotation. The Giants, if I had to guess, look like frontrunners. The Rockies look interesting to. And at some point the Diamondbacks might get their act together.
I think the Dodgers lineup, depending what configuration they use in the outfield, is serviceable. If Yasiel Puig could ever get it together, or a real right-handed power bat in the outfielder were added via trade, I’d be a bigger believer. There are good parts, and some question marks. No one knows what the three outfield spots will look like, or how many outfielders Friedman will run out there to fill those three spots. Twelve?
I’m still a firm believer in things like speed (absent), health (absent) and a deep pitching staff (likely absent). I think you win series in October by lining up well with your competition and what we witnessed last October was hard to watch. I’m not used to seeing starters hoping to “gut their way” through three innings. I’m not used to a bullpen one deep (ok, two – but Blanton likely won’t come back, and his October performance sadly was his lowlight for the year).
I think when you put together a pitching staff you need to think foremost about innings. How many innings can I count on my starters for? If you have a bunch of injured pitchers and potential DL stints, it’s a huge problem. It means your day’s start is in question, as are the games after it, since you likely taxed your pen to make up for the innings your injured starter could not go. i.e. for every suspect member of your rotation, it costs 2-3 days afterward as well. So if you have 2-3 suspect starters, you likely will always be running on fumes. This was the case with the 2016 Dodgers and their spent bullpen that was asked to do too much in October.
You would think the lesson would be learned and a few horses were added to the rotation and a few stoppers to the back of the pen, but it’s virtually the same group we saw last season. Brandon Morrow was brought in on a minor league deal, but he’s just more proof to my point. It is only the end of January, so who knows, perhaps a trick is up Friedman’s sleeve. If so, I’d still say why does he always have to go the long way? Theo certainly wouldn’t.
That’s all I have for now. To summarize – Logan Forsythe may be a fine person and a decent second baseman. He certainly helps compared to what was at second most of last season. That said, as a Dodgers fan you had three answers already around and teased with a bigger fish and ended up with a 30 year old Tampa Ray and it cost you one of the top prospects in the organization. Was it worth it? Only time will tell. I will simply say the dancing around and shuffling of musical chairs was clearly unnecessary. A smarter front office wouldn’t have chosen this route.
I will also remind that this isn’t about holding onto prospects. Some of course you choose and hang onto for dear life – Seager is one, and Bellinger looks to be another. Every prospect a future superstar for your team? Only in some fantasy world. If you pick the guys you want and deal some others for needs, that’s ok. I’d argue that for all the credit he gets as someone holding onto prospects (mostly chosen and developed under Logan White and Ned Colletti), he did deal three to Oakland in July and another to Tampa this week. The net haul is the right to sign Rich Hill for a lot of money and Logan Forsythe. Not sure that’s exactly how you best use this important currency.
Another funny thing from the debate I had the other day. Someone was telling me how De León wasn’t that good anyway and luckily we have Grant Holmes, who will be much better. I had to break it to the guy that Holmes might be better, but he will be better in Oakland.
The final point of comedy I will share this Friday afternoon is a CBS Sports article I saw yesterday, again saying how the Dodgers are better than the Cubs. The article was very firm in that the Dodgers have everything the Cubs had and more and that Friedman and the front office are geniuses. Wow, something other than Fangraphs, saying the exact same thing.
As I am rather skeptical of such rhetoric, I did a quick Google search and found the author (Jonah Keri) of the CBS Sports article had written a book. The topic? What a genius Friedman is and how he transformed the Tampa Rays. Again, consider the source. I have not in all honesty heard such praise on the Dodgers winter or the Dodgers unseating the Cubs anywhere else. I listen to MLB Network Radio fairly regularly, read what the known baseball writers say, etc. but I am not hearing it.
Can the Dodgers win? Well, it’s been three decades and the team does have some good players, so sure, maybe. Would I say they are a favorite? Even in their own division? Would I say they are better than the Cubs? The Indians? The Red Sox? No, I couldn’t say that. They are the same team they were in October, with a new second baseman and a few hail marys added as “depth.” I’d say losing Blanton from the pen and not really replacing him makes it arguably a net negative.
Let’s see what else these guys do. It just shouldn’t take this long. Their route is very unnecessary, which tells me they are either extremely arrogant or clueless. You decide.
‘Tis the eve before Christmas eve so why not talk a little Dodgers? It’s been an important yet overall uneventful off-season for the guys who wear Dodger blue. Important because someone high up the food chain, likely Mark Walter again, told the dueling dummies of Friedman and Zaidi and their gaggle of geniuses they better keep Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner or not only would the club not have a real shot vs. a closer-added Giants team, but worse, the fans might not show up for the higher ticket, parking and concessions prices. While all thoughts are of a magical 2018, Guggenheim still wants to squeeze every cent out of hopeful/delusional Dodgers fans. That $8B ($6B in profit after paying the blue blood con man) TV deal is hardly enough for rich capitalists. So, after risking losing both Kenley and the ginger haired ewok to other teams, Friedman and Zaidi “came to their senses” and signed the pair for market value – i.e. what they should have and could have paid in Oct. Interesting how baseball works.
With the important out of the way, we are back to hearing how the Dodgers are “in” on every big name, without anything to show for it. After July’s dance around Chris Sale and Ryan Braun, now the music has changed to Brian Dozier, who also is getting his tires kicked by the Giants. While Dozier would be a huge offensive shot in the arm and help answer the void Friedman and Zaidi created vs. left-handed pitching, I’m not a huge fan. That said, if the Giants add him plus their new closer, it’s curtains for LA, unless they switch course and land Ian Kinsler.
Dozier, who I had on fantasy, dropped when he was struggling below .200 for a long period of time and then grabbed when I spied he was coming out of his long funk, is definitely a guy you’d be “buying high” on. Is he the offensive beast we saw in the second half, or the guy who takes months off? I say he’s the ideal Friedman and Zaidi feast or famine hitter. He’d help a lot, but is he the best fit? I don’t think so. Better fits were Dee Gordon and Jose Peraza, or César Hernández of the Phillies. I’m of the antiquated opinion a speedy lead-off guy would help more than another swing for the fences type. Of course, I’d also add a legit outfield bat to help fulfill that dearth of production from the right side of the plate, be it Braun (who is crucified for Dodgers fans for cheating the year our guy likely was cheating) or some other run producing bat.
Ian Kinsler would be a much bigger asset, in my opinion, to Dozier, but he comes with his own set of concerns. While a pure hitter in the sense of Corey Seager and Adrian Gonzalez, turner is 34 and would probably insist on a contract extension, considering his deal ends after 2017 (with an option for 2018) and the blue are on his no-trade list. I guess it depends how much Friedman and Zaidi want to “win now” and how much they believe in Willie Calhoun. For the record, I don’t think Friedman and Zaidi care about winning now – they firmly are planning for all their prospects to become stars. The “win now” thing is coming from the top, and like I said, only then to keep the stadium full. One more for the record, not to say Calhoun won’t be great someday, but right now he’s a kid who hit. 254 at AA, so not quite ready for serious conversations, not to mention a left-handed bat.
I’d say finding two bats from the right side should be a big priority that shouldn’t wait until spring training, but knowing the way the Moneyballers operate, we might not see anything substantial until then. I’d say if you could get that César Hernández type and add a solid bat to replace Yasiel Puig in the outfield, the offense is in a good place. If they add Dozier, I’d still look for a bat for the outfield, as Dozier is fully capable of disappearing for weeks, months, at a time.
You should think how a lineup is perceived by an opposing team. The more “scary” guys you have, the harder it is for them to plan against. i.e. Kinsler a lot better and scarier than Dozier, unless Dozier is in a hot streak. Kinsler will keep teams honest. If you have Seager, Turner and Adrian and then add Kinsler, that’s four bats capable of getting a hit most of the time. Braun, like him or not, is the same way. In my experience, the more “scary” guys you add, the better your chances are, and the harder it is for opposing teams to pitch to. If you have a lot of .240 (or below) types with 100+ strikeouts, much easier.
Beyond that, I’d say the Dodgers need a real #2 starting pitcher but I guess that can wait until July. Rich Hill, they believe, is that #2, but like Scott Kazmir, a guy who was pitching in independent baseball not long ago and you end up there for a reason. Hill is not a #2. On his best day, he adds a smart arm that deepens your staff, but in no reality is he capable of stepping up in a big way when the World Series is on the line. I wouldn’t consider him an anchor anyway, some might disagree. To them, I’d say go check his career and his track record of injuries.
So, the rotation is what it is and likely is hopeful on magic and prayer, just like last year. Perhaps in July, when fighting for the West lead, or more likely the NL wildcard, a team will have dropped out and Friedman and Zaidi can trade off some of the prospects they cling to like gold. Prepare for a lot of mix and match like 2016 in the meantime – fun!
That leaves the pen, which obviously is much better with Kenley being back. That said, last year it was overworked due to the 3-5 inning starts regularly out of an ill-prepared pitching rotation. I don’t see it being any different in 2017, even if they retain Joe Blanton. And I would look to keep Blanton, and add another setup man. Friedman and Zaidi must have noticed the game has changed and while they assume starting pitching doesn’t matter, you’d assume they’d realize a killer pen does. It was evident in Oct. The Dodgers are innings short in the rotation and one deep at the back end of the pen. You need to be 3-4 deep, so thinking Pedro Báez and the other meatheads Friedman and Zaidi have accumulated meet that criteria, would be plain dumb.
The idea is to shorten games, and the Dodgers current crop of relievers are interchangeable mid innings types. I don’t see that “scary” factor that is also required in your rotation and bullpen, as well as your lineup. I doubt Bruce Bochy, Joe Maddon and other managers panic when they see anyone beside Kenley throwing in the Dodgers pen. Ideally, especially when your payroll is over $250M, you have quality and “scary” out there. So, again in my most humble opinion, the Dodgers should think of that. Back end of the pen needs to be deeper, the current mix isn’t going to cut it.
I guess I will leave you there. I hope we don’t see 2016 redux next season. If any Dodger fan is thrilled just because Kenley and Turner are back, remember, this team wasn’t good enough to win, and I’d say lucky as hell to have gotten as far as they did. The idea, if you look around baseball during this Hot Stove season, is to improve. The Dodgers have not improved. The rotation is still spotty, the lineup can’t hit left-handers, the pen is one deep, etc. There is work to be done if the Dodgers want to move forward. The Giants, again, have moved forward. The good teams are acquiring pieces to set them up for deep runs. The Dodgers have been smart to keep two key pieces, but are no better now than they were on October 22nd. That’s the night they lost game 6 in Chicago, if you weren’t sure.
Plenty of time to fix the issues that need to be fixed, so I’m just a voice of reason. What is the goal for 2017? Filling the parking lot and stadium or getting back to the NLCS, and go further? We shall see, we shall see.
Have a very Merry Christmas; Happy Hanukkah; lovely Kwanzaa and safe and sane (haha, good luck!) New Year. 29 years and counting.