PDA

View Full Version : Dodgers, Lilly agree to three year deal



B.G.B
10-17-2010, 01:31 AM
Veteran left-hander Ted Lilly, who would have been eligible for free agency after the World Series, instead has agreed to terms on a three-year contract to remain with the Los Angeles Dodgers, a source with knowledge of the situation confirmed Saturday on the condition of anonymity because the deal is contingent on Lilly's passing a physical examination.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5694496

Rdy2PlayBall
10-17-2010, 01:35 AM
I thought he loved the Cubbies and was going to hurry back to them for less money? :(

Twins Fan 7
10-17-2010, 01:37 AM
I'm guessing he got a great deal.

iggypop123
10-17-2010, 03:27 AM
I thought he loved the Cubbies and was going to hurry back to them for less money? :(

he was born in Cali. im thinking he wanted to stay near his home.

theslick1
10-17-2010, 10:40 AM
I guess he'd rather play for a 4th place team than a 5th place team.

Dmac
10-17-2010, 11:12 AM
he was born in Cali. im thinking he wanted to stay near his home.

He would have definitely came back to the Cubs if they were interested. He loved it here. They are rebuilding though, and lowering payroll a bit, so resigning him didn't make much sense.

Giraffes Rule
10-17-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm pretty sure he said he wanted to stay in LA sometime in September and that they had been working on a contract the whole time.

Jilly Bohnson
10-17-2010, 02:10 PM
I still can't stop laughing at the fact that Coletti gave him three years. I love Lilly but that's a baaaadddd idea.

giants73756
10-17-2010, 02:19 PM
I guess he'd rather play for a 4th place team than a 5th place team.

They'll be a 5th place team soon enough :D

This saddens me I've always really liked Lilly :sigh:

Gigantes4Life
10-17-2010, 02:25 PM
:laugh2: 3 years for Lilly.

DodgerB24
10-17-2010, 02:43 PM
:laugh2: 3 years for Lilly.

121mil for Zito. :laugh2:

Gigantes4Life
10-17-2010, 02:49 PM
Totally irrelevant :laugh2:

CHRISDODGERS
10-17-2010, 03:04 PM
I think it's a solid deal. Kersh/Bills/Lilly isnt bad. Ned's got alot left to do though...

VRP723
10-17-2010, 03:06 PM
Lilly's a junkballer who hasn't showed any evidence of a decline. Kuroda's also going to get 3 years somewhere, and he's older and injury prone. Am I missing something here?

Sidenote-I renamed the thread, just so people know what it's about.

Gigantes4Life
10-17-2010, 03:20 PM
Lilly's a junkballer who hasn't showed any evidence of a decline. Kuroda's also going to get 3 years somewhere, and he's older and injury prone. Am I missing something here?

Sidenote-I renamed the thread, just so people know what it's about.

Obviously it depends on the money he's paid, but as a 34 year old he's going to decline, and he's not much more than a 4/5 to begin with.

DodgerB24
10-17-2010, 03:21 PM
Lilly's a junkballer who hasn't showed any evidence of a decline. Kuroda's also going to get 3 years somewhere, and he's older and injury prone. Am I missing something here?

Sidenote-I renamed the thread, just so people know what it's about.

I'm really liking our 2010 SP rotation more than the 09' rotation. Kershaw, Bills and Lilly with Paddila at #4. Maybe bring up Ely for the #5 spot to see how he does.

CHRISDODGERS
10-17-2010, 03:25 PM
^ I hate Ely. I just think he's gonna be rocked every start. what about bringing back Garland? he's a solid #4 imo.

Jilly Bohnson
10-17-2010, 03:29 PM
Lilly's a junkballer who hasn't showed any evidence of a decline. Kuroda's also going to get 3 years somewhere, and he's older and injury prone. Am I missing something here?

Sidenote-I renamed the thread, just so people know what it's about.

Giving 3 years to a pitcher for his age 35, 36, and 37 seasons is usually going to end poorly. Not to mention finesse guys like Lilly generally age badly since as they lose the little bit they have on their fastball if they don't have their A game command on any given day they get boned.

lakersfan01
10-17-2010, 03:37 PM
I still can't stop laughing at the fact that Coletti gave him three years. I love Lilly but that's a baaaadddd idea.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ned Coletti and Frank Mcourt are morons!!! What a team we had this year huh? haha Ted Lilly 3 more years wow. Did Coletti get together with Mitch Kupchac? Nothing could be as bad as Lakers signing Puke Walton for 6 years but wow Lilly didn't even finish that great. And 'ol Ted Lilly won't be getting younger anytime soon HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I've been a Dodger fan my whole life and its brutal haha.

So let's get this straight, we let Derek Lowe and Randy Wolfe walk, but then sign Ted Lilly to 3 years. I can't wait to see how much they are spending on him LOL.

Lincecum4CY
10-17-2010, 03:41 PM
121mil for Zito. :laugh2:

at least get it right. its 126.

anyone know how much the deal is worth?

CHRISDODGERS
10-17-2010, 03:42 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ned Coletti and Frank Mcourt are morons!!! What a team we had this year huh? haha Ted Lilly 3 more years wow. Did Coletti get together with Mitch Kupchac? Nothing could be as bad as Lakers signing Puke Walton for 6 years but wow Lilly didn't even finish that great. And 'ol Ted Lilly won't be getting younger anytime soon HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I've been a Dodger fan my whole life and its brutal haha.

So let's get this straight, we let Derek Lowe and Randy Wolfe walk, but then sign Ted Lilly to 3 years. I can't wait to see how much they are spending on him LOL.

:facepalm:

DodgerB24
10-17-2010, 04:16 PM
at least get it right. its 126.

anyone know how much the deal is worth?

Oh, my bad. 126 mil for a guy who hasn't had a winning season yet. :sigh:

B.G.B
10-17-2010, 04:31 PM
Oh, my bad. 126 mil for a guy who hasn't had a winning season yet. :sigh:

Same guy who was suppose to be their ACE?? haha he didn't even get a spot in the bullpen for the playoffs! Poor Giants Fan still have to live with that contract for a couple more season haha...Worst contract in history im all for it!

Jeffy25
10-17-2010, 06:43 PM
so, Lilly costs the Dodgers 5 prospects

Lincecum4CY
10-17-2010, 07:07 PM
lol nvm you aren't even worth my time.

Benny21
10-17-2010, 07:27 PM
Worst contract in history belongs to the dodgers.

Kevin Brown in 1998: 7 years/105 million

According to inflation calculator, would be worth $133,563,865.00 in 2007, which is the year zito signed.

DodgerBlue8188
10-17-2010, 07:31 PM
Worst contract in history belongs to the dodgers.

Kevin Brown in 1998: 7 years/105 million

According to inflation calculator, would be worth $133,563,865.00 in 2007, which is the year zito signed.

And I believe the Dodgers got out of some of that.

DodgerBlue8188
10-17-2010, 07:33 PM
I like this overall. I'd prefer 2 years instead of 3 but he could still be a decent number 4 or 5 his last year in the contract. I was worried that we were going to have gotten rid of Dewitt for just a rental. So this way if Lilly has a good year in 2011 and Dewitt doesn't get better than IMO it was a good trade for the Dodgers.

Mell413
10-17-2010, 07:35 PM
I like Lilly as much as the next guy, but 3 years is a lot for a guy his age. I would have liked him back on the Cubs if the situation was right, but for 3 years I'll pass. I think Lilly could have some success in LA though.

Gigantes4Life
10-17-2010, 07:41 PM
Same guy who was suppose to be their ACE?? haha he didn't even get a spot in the bullpen for the playoffs! Poor Giants Fan still have to live with that contract for a couple more season haha...Worst contract in history im all for it!

Zito and playoff Giants>Lilly and 4th place Dodgers.

B.G.B
10-17-2010, 07:43 PM
Worst contract in history belongs to the dodgers.

Kevin Brown in 1998: 7 years/105 million

According to inflation calculator, would be worth $133,563,865.00 in 2007, which is the year zito signed.

Atleast the Dodgers got 4 winning seasons out of him and eventually traded him to the Yankees not like Zito who hasn't even had a winning season for them.

Gigantes4Life
10-17-2010, 07:44 PM
Atleast the Dodgers got 4 winning seasons out of him and eventually traded him to the Yankees not like Zito who hasn't even had a winning season for them.

Using win-loss to support your argument makes you seem more credible.

King Of Kings
10-17-2010, 07:48 PM
I thought this was bad at first.. but then i saw the post about zito's contract..lololoolololollol Makes this signing almost sound smart.

B.G.B
10-17-2010, 07:50 PM
Using win-loss to support your argument makes you seem more credible.

Well then lets look at the rest of the numbers.

Brown:
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV WHIP ERA
1999 LA 35 35 5 1 252.1 210 99 84 19 59 221 18 9 0 0 -- 1.07 3.00
2000 LA 33 33 5 1 230.0 181 76 66 21 47 216 13 6 0 0 -- 0.99 2.58
2001 LA 20 19 1 0 115.2 94 41 34 8 38 104 10 4 0 0 -- 1.14 2.65
2002 LA 17 10 0 0 63.2 68 36 34 9 23 58 3 4 0 1 -- 1.43 4.81
2003 LA 32 32 0 0 211.0 184 67 56 11 56 185 14 9 0 0 -- 1.14 2.39



Zito:
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV WHIP ERA
2007 SF 34 33 0 0 196.2 182 105 99 24 83 131 11 13 0 0 -- 1.35 4.53
2008 SF 32 32 0 0 180.0 186 115 103 16 102 120 10 17 0 0 -- 1.60 5.15
2009 SF 33 33 1 0 192.0 179 89 86 21 81 154 10 13 0 0 -- 1.35 4.03
2010 SF 34 33 1 0 199.1 184 97 92 20 84 150 9 14 0 0 -- 1.34 4.15

By far Brown was better then what Zito has provided you guys in his 4 seasons.

VRP723
10-17-2010, 07:51 PM
:facepalm:

I'm not sure just one facepalm is enough


so, Lilly costs the Dodgers 5 prospects

So let me get this straight, Lilly resigns a week after the season ends, but you think he would have declined comp, which is basically raising his 10 million dollar contract to 12 and staying in L.A where his stats were ridiculous? Because I don't.

Jeffy25
10-17-2010, 07:52 PM
Kevin Brown pitched well for the Dodgers, but Zito hasn't been nearly as bad as people act.

But both contracts were crazy large

BaustinSali08
10-17-2010, 07:52 PM
Well then lets look at the rest of the numbers.

Brown:
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV WHIP ERA
1999 LA 35 35 5 1 252.1 210 99 84 19 59 221 18 9 0 0 -- 1.07 3.00
2000 LA 33 33 5 1 230.0 181 76 66 21 47 216 13 6 0 0 -- 0.99 2.58
2001 LA 20 19 1 0 115.2 94 41 34 8 38 104 10 4 0 0 -- 1.14 2.65
2002 LA 17 10 0 0 63.2 68 36 34 9 23 58 3 4 0 1 -- 1.43 4.81
2003 LA 32 32 0 0 211.0 184 67 56 11 56 185 14 9 0 0 -- 1.14 2.39



Zito:
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV WHIP ERA
2007 SF 34 33 0 0 196.2 182 105 99 24 83 131 11 13 0 0 -- 1.35 4.53
2008 SF 32 32 0 0 180.0 186 115 103 16 102 120 10 17 0 0 -- 1.60 5.15
2009 SF 33 33 1 0 192.0 179 89 86 21 81 154 10 13 0 0 -- 1.35 4.03
2010 SF 34 33 1 0 199.1 184 97 92 20 84 150 9 14 0 0 -- 1.34 4.15

By far Brown was better then what Zito has provided you guys in his 4 seasons.

I can't even read that. :laugh:

Jeffy25
10-17-2010, 07:55 PM
So let me get this straight, Lilly resigns a week after the season ends, but you think he would have declined comp, which is basically raising his 10 million dollar contract to 12 and staying in L.A where his stats were ridiculous? Because I don't.

There is no way he would accept arb, he wanted to test and get 2-3 years, surely.

He obviously signed for that long, so he obviously was demanding it.

I don't see why he would have accepted arb.

Also, Lilly made 12 million in 2010, not 10.

King Of Kings
10-17-2010, 07:56 PM
Wait, Kevin Brown was good with the dodgers.. i dont understand how that was a superbad deal. they didnt even have to pay for all of it

B.G.B
10-17-2010, 07:57 PM
I can't even read that. :laugh:

Oh yeah I forgot Giants are in the playoffs for the first time in years I forgot their over-hyped right now!

VRP723
10-17-2010, 08:19 PM
There is no way he would accept arb, he wanted to test and get 2-3 years, surely.

He obviously signed for that long, so he obviously was demanding it.

I don't see why he would have accepted arb.

The Dodgers clearly wanted him back, if he would have declined arb he would have been substantially less attractive to other teams, and in the end would have probably had to come back anyway.

el_primo_nano
10-17-2010, 08:24 PM
good deal for the dodgers.

iggypop123
10-18-2010, 01:15 AM
Worst contract in history belongs to the dodgers.

Kevin Brown in 1998: 7 years/105 million

According to inflation calculator, would be worth $133,563,865.00 in 2007, which is the year zito signed.

i cant remember but didnt the dodgers get out of his contract and the yanks took him in?

Gigantes4Life
10-18-2010, 01:29 AM
Oh yeah I forgot Giants are in the playoffs for the first time in years I forgot their over-hyped right now!

You do realize that the argument you're using right now (one where you change the topic to something completely unrelated) is basically admitting that you have nothing to use to defend the Lilly deal right?

This is about Lilly, not Zito. Zito's contract doesn't make giving Lilly a 3-year deal any less foolish.

They should have just offered him arbitration.

VRP723
10-18-2010, 01:30 AM
It's pretty ridiculous to be criticizing this as much as you've been doing before we even know how much it's for. Calm down.

LADTXR
10-18-2010, 01:42 AM
Zito and playoff Giants>Lilly and 4th place Dodgers.

I believe you were the one that changed the topic. Lilly>Zito plain and simple

Gigantes4Life
10-18-2010, 01:42 AM
I already mentioned that it depends on the price, but considering Colleti is an alumni of the Sabean School of Offering Older Players Fat contracts, I see him getting about 10 million a year.

VRP723
10-18-2010, 01:46 AM
I already mentioned that it depends on the price, but considering Colleti is an alumni of the Sabean School of Offering Older Players Fat contracts, I see him getting about 10 million a year.

My thought process is if it's less than 24 million it's a good deal, less than 30 and I'm not devastated.

GoatMilk
10-18-2010, 01:49 AM
it's a fat contract for sure

Jeffy25
10-18-2010, 01:50 AM
For Lilly to forego the chance of free agency bidding, and that he got 3 years, I am guessing it's in the 28-35 million dollar range.

Either way, should have just offered him arb....if it was a 3 year deal, worth something like 15 million, front loaded, then sure, but it certainly is worth more than that.

VRP723
10-18-2010, 01:50 AM
On second thought, McCourt spends money so infrequently why do we care what he spent, we should just be happy out big off-season signing isn't Jamie Carroll.

LADTXR
10-18-2010, 01:50 AM
i'm guessing 10/year, it's colleti we're talking about

CHRISDODGERS
10-18-2010, 02:10 AM
at least we got someone :shrug:

DodgerB24
10-18-2010, 03:04 AM
at least we got someone :shrug:

That's what i'm thinking. :cry:

RTL
10-18-2010, 11:03 PM
Darren Driefort had a worse contract than Kevin Brown people!!! This is not a bad signing for the Dodgers. Lilly will thrive in that spacious ballpark plus he doesn't walk a lot of batters to hurt himself. He made $13 million this year and don't see much of a raise. Dodgers now have a solid three in the rotation and now need to focus on other areas.

Hopper15
10-19-2010, 01:37 AM
Lilly pitching great in second half, not a bad signing at all.

t327
10-19-2010, 02:52 AM
Of course this thread had to be turned into petty arguments between Giant and Dodger fans.

NoQuarter
10-19-2010, 08:53 AM
I probably shouldn't butt in on the Dodger/Giant fan pissing match but I don't see how anyone can intelligently say it is a good/bad deal before they even know what he is being paid per year.

Three years seems pretty fair though.

hype707
10-19-2010, 12:25 PM
I think the Lilly deal is a Great one. After the three years is done maybe he can be the pitching coach. Lilly is the best Left Hander in the NL WEST RIGHT NOW. I hope the Dodgers pitch him on Opening day next year. he is just that awesome! Go Dodgers you guys are doing all the good things right now.

DodgerB24
10-19-2010, 01:14 PM
Darren Driefort had a worse contract than Kevin Brown people!!! This is not a bad signing for the Dodgers. Lilly will thrive in that spacious ballpark plus he doesn't walk a lot of batters to hurt himself. He made $13 million this year and don't see much of a raise. Dodgers now have a solid three in the rotation and now need to focus on other areas.


I think the Lilly deal is a Great one. After the three years is done maybe he can be the pitching coach. Lilly is the best Left Hander in the NL WEST RIGHT NOW. I hope the Dodgers pitch him on Opening day next year. he is just that awesome! Go Dodgers you guys are doing all the good things right now.

Something isn't right here. :p

VRP723
10-19-2010, 02:44 PM
I think the Lilly deal is a Great one. After the three years is done maybe he can be the pitching coach. Lilly is the best Left Hander in the NL WEST RIGHT NOW. I hope the Dodgers pitch him on Opening day next year. he is just that awesome! Go Dodgers you guys are doing all the good things right now.

Why thanks bud!

Gigantes4Life
10-19-2010, 04:02 PM
Are they supposed to re-sign Kuroda and Shrek?

B.G.B
10-19-2010, 04:05 PM
Are they supposed to re-sign Kuroda and Shrek?

Shrek lol, that guy is heck ugly haha

giantspwn
10-19-2010, 04:18 PM
Amazing deal for LA. One of the top LHP in the game. I can't believe he signed for only three years.

Expect LA to definitely not finish last in the NL West this year.

DodgerB24
10-19-2010, 07:25 PM
Amazing deal for LA. One of the top LHP in the game. I can't believe he signed for only three years.

Expect LA to definitely not finish last in the NL West this year.

We didn't finish last this year, but I know what you're saying. Thanks. :p

hugepatsfan
10-19-2010, 07:26 PM
3 years lol

JRisdabest
10-19-2010, 07:33 PM
3 yr 24 mil is my guess

ChronRon
10-19-2010, 07:39 PM
And not even a post season starter.....VERY RELEVANT!

RTL
10-19-2010, 08:20 PM
Something isn't right here. :p

I'm a baseball fan first.:)

Looks like the deal will be worth $11 million a year so I can't anything to really cry about. Looks like a solid deal.

VRP723
10-19-2010, 09:39 PM
Jeez, 33 million is a lot

DodgerBlue8188
10-19-2010, 10:04 PM
Jeez, 33 million is a lot


Yea, I would have been happier with about 2 years 22 million. By then we got some young talent coming up from A and AA to replace him in the rotation and were not paying a big chuck of the payroll to him 3 years from now when he's too old to tie his cleats.

CHRISDODGERS
10-19-2010, 11:57 PM
I would have been happier with 25-27... but he's solid so ill take it.

GoatMilk
10-20-2010, 12:25 AM
Are they supposed to re-sign Kuroda and Shrek?

lol Shrek

I think he's likely to come back
Kuroda I read would be willing to sign a 1 year deal so maybe he can come back
(no link on that, just a rumor)

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 12:39 AM
33 million, wow, Colletti, dude, that is gonna hurt

potentially five specs for age 35-37 seasons for a soft tossing lefty.....don't think it is a good buy for a team that should be focused on building back up

RTL
10-20-2010, 02:33 AM
Potentially five prospects? Where is this coming from? Colletti has come out and said the payroll will be increased so the money isn't going to hurt. $11 million per year is not that bad for a solid #3 starter. We just saw a 38 year old lefty pitch a solid game in the ALCS who is making more than Lilly, is older and pitches in a much more offensive friendly division.

CHRISDODGERS
10-20-2010, 02:35 AM
33 million, wow, Colletti, dude, that is gonna hurt

potentially five specs for age 35-37 seasons for a soft tossing lefty.....don't think it is a good buy for a team that should be focused on building back up

5 spects? you mean 2?

VRP723
10-20-2010, 02:52 AM
5 spects? you mean 2?

He's referring to the two prospect we could have had if we offered him arbitration and he declined. It's really not a smart way to look at things, way too many variables to predict what would have happened, along with the fact that for all we know Lilly could get traded for better prospects in 2 and a half years. You can't just come out and say we gave up 5 prospects, it's nonsensical.

CHRISDODGERS
10-20-2010, 02:54 AM
He's referring to the two prospect we could have had if we offered him arbitration and he declined. It's really not a smart way to look at things, way too many variables to predict what would have happened, along with the fact that for all we know Lilly could get traded for better prospects in 2 and a half years. You can't just come out and say we gave up 5 prospects, it's nonsensical.

ohh, alright lol no wonder I didn't get it.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 03:11 AM
He's referring to the two prospect we could have had if we offered him arbitration and he declined. It's really not a smart way to look at things, way too many variables to predict what would have happened, along with the fact that for all we know Lilly could get traded for better prospects in 2 and a half years. You can't just come out and say we gave up 5 prospects, it's nonsensical.

you gave up three young players for an aging player, and then overpaid him, instead of keeping the three younger, cheaper guys and continued to let them develop. But, you were in a chance to try to claim the division, so it made sense.

But now, instead of cutting the loses, and potentially getting two of those specs back on a team that needs to be focusing on building from within, instead of 'spot' spending their money on aging veterans, you give Lilly a huge contract that he is just as likely to get hurt during as he is to be effective.

It's just not the correct direction, that is all. Of course, it wouldn't be five prospects all at once, but you gave up, up to five different players for him, so he better be great in the next 3 years.

And I highly doubt he retains his current value in 2.5 years for you at the deadline that year, and that you would get anything close to what you gave up to land him.

This is the whole 'smart management' thing we keep talking about in the salary cap thread. The Dodgers aren't really in a place to try to piece together their limited funds toward a team that isn't likely to come out competing next season. They should be focusing on building from within while funds are 'tight' saving what they can, and locking up players like Kershaw, Kemp etc for the long term plan. Right now, there are just several holes in the roster, that don't need to be replaced with aging, declining veterans and over paying them through free agency.

Ted Lilly is a fine pitcher, but to assume that he will be worth 33 million over the next 3 years is pretty funny. Especially to a team that really is limited in funds that they can put on the team. That 33 million could be invested in the two draft picks you would get for someone else signing him and developing those players into long term success plans, as well into several other players.

What's funny, I personally really like Ted Lilly, but it isn't smart baseball management, something I question if Colletti is even capable of doing.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 03:25 AM
Potentially five prospects? Where is this coming from? Colletti has come out and said the payroll will be increased so the money isn't going to hurt. $11 million per year is not that bad for a solid #3 starter. We just saw a 38 year old lefty pitch a solid game in the ALCS who is making more than Lilly, is older and pitches in a much more offensive friendly division.

Are you comparing 38 year old, potential hall of fame destined pitcher Andy Pettitte, who last signed a multi year deal when he was 31 to Ted Lilly? Who has never had a season as good as Pettitte's 4 best seasons? And has only had 3, maybe 4 actually productive seasons in his career? Pettitte is twice the pitcher, and has had twice the career as Lilly, and you are really gonna compare their contracts and effectiveness to justify this latest travesty?


Pardon me while I :laugh:




The only effective example of this working out for a soft tossing lefty I can find is Jamie Moyer, who had a terrible career until he was 33.


Lilly could be effective, but is this the move they need to win for the next three years? Or could that money go elsewhere, and be better funded toward long term plans?




The Dodgers should be going in another direction, and I am sure most Dodger fans don't want to hear that, but they should be. And signing Lilly like this is not going in that direction.

Jilly Bohnson
10-20-2010, 11:31 AM
Jeez, 33 million is a lot

:nod:

ccugrad1
10-20-2010, 12:47 PM
Would everyone agree that Lilly is probably a #3 starter? If so, in terms of dollars per year, it isn't that off. Say what you will, but in today's MLB, a #3 starter is an 7.5,8-11 million a year investment. Look at some of these guys who I believe are #3 starters:

Randy Wolf-- nearly 10 million per year
Jason Marquis-- 7.5 million per year
Joel Pineiro-- 8 million per year
Ben Sheets-- 10 million
Randy Johnson (2008 at 47)-- 8 million
Oliver Perez-- 12 million

Lilly's contract falls right in line with other #3 starters.

Tkais9009
10-20-2010, 03:02 PM
33 million is way to much IMO

---------------------------


Would everyone agree that Lilly is probably a #3 starter? If so, in terms of dollars per year, it isn't that off. Say what you will, but in today's MLB, a #3 starter is an 7.5,8-11 million a year investment. Look at some of these guys who I believe are #3 starters:

Randy Wolf-- nearly 10 million per year
Jason Marquis-- 7.5 million per year
Joel Pineiro-- 8 million per year
Ben Sheets-- 10 million
Randy Johnson (2008 at 47)-- 8 million
Oliver Perez-- 12 million

Lilly's contract falls right in line with other #3 starters.

for next season and maybe 2012 i would agree with you, but in 2013 when he's 37, i doubt he'll still have #3 SP quality numbers

C-ross12
10-20-2010, 03:42 PM
It really depends. If Lilly pitches like he did for the past 4 years its a good deal. If he regresses like some think (Me too), then its not so good. Obviously the dodgers dont believe he will regress so badly that hes not worth the contract; thats why they signed him to it. I do know this. Lilly has been very good for us Cubs. Hopefully he will be for you dodgers.

Tragedy
10-20-2010, 04:02 PM
My thoughts are simple: 33 million is a lot, but he was solid this year. I like him for the next two years, too. Not sure about the third year.

Jilly Bohnson
10-20-2010, 04:43 PM
Would everyone agree that Lilly is probably a #3 starter? If so, in terms of dollars per year, it isn't that off. Say what you will, but in today's MLB, a #3 starter is an 7.5,8-11 million a year investment. Look at some of these guys who I believe are #3 starters:

Randy Wolf-- nearly 10 million per year
Jason Marquis-- 7.5 million per year
Joel Pineiro-- 8 million per year
Ben Sheets-- 10 million
Randy Johnson (2008 at 47)-- 8 million
Oliver Perez-- 12 million

Lilly's contract falls right in line with other #3 starters.

And how well have those contracts worked out for their teams so far? Except for Pineiro every one of those contracts the team would take back if they could.

I'm a Cubs fan, I've watched A LOT of Lilly over the past few years. I love the guy. But he's on the decline and IMO he's not going to age particularly well. His velocity is dropping every year, and as it goes down his homer problem is going to get worse and worse. Those fastballs he's throwing at the belt that guys are swinging under or popping up now are going to more and more end up in the seats going forward. This contract isn't awful, but man it is not smart. It's pretty much going to take the best case scenario for Lilly to actually be worth that much money.

CHRISDODGERS
10-20-2010, 05:12 PM
My thoughts are simple: 33 million is a lot, but he was solid this year. I like him for the next two years, too. Not sure about the third year.

that's why he doesn't have a no trade clause the last year so if he sucks *** we can ship him out of here.

C-ross12
10-20-2010, 05:15 PM
that's why he doesn't have a no trade clause the last year so if he sucks *** we can ship him out of here.

Ha.. such optimism. If Lilly "sucks ***" who is going to want him at 11 a year and getting older?

Ron!n
10-20-2010, 05:19 PM
you gave up three young players for an aging player, and then overpaid him, instead of keeping the three younger, cheaper guys and continued to let them develop. But, you were in a chance to try to claim the division, so it made sense.

But now, instead of cutting the loses, and potentially getting two of those specs back on a team that needs to be focusing on building from within, instead of 'spot' spending their money on aging veterans, you give Lilly a huge contract that he is just as likely to get hurt during as he is to be effective.

It's just not the correct direction, that is all. Of course, it wouldn't be five prospects all at once, but you gave up, up to five different players for him, so he better be great in the next 3 years.

And I highly doubt he retains his current value in 2.5 years for you at the deadline that year, and that you would get anything close to what you gave up to land him.

This is the whole 'smart management' thing we keep talking about in the salary cap thread. The Dodgers aren't really in a place to try to piece together their limited funds toward a team that isn't likely to come out competing next season. They should be focusing on building from within while funds are 'tight' saving what they can, and locking up players like Kershaw, Kemp etc for the long term plan. Right now, there are just several holes in the roster, that don't need to be replaced with aging, declining veterans and over paying them through free agency.

Ted Lilly is a fine pitcher, but to assume that he will be worth 33 million over the next 3 years is pretty funny. Especially to a team that really is limited in funds that they can put on the team. That 33 million could be invested in the two draft picks you would get for someone else signing him and developing those players into long term success plans, as well into several other players.

What's funny, I personally really like Ted Lilly, but it isn't smart baseball management, something I question if Colletti is even capable of doing.
And you know Lilly wouldnt have accepted arbitration because....

CHRISDODGERS
10-20-2010, 05:29 PM
Ha.. such optimism. If Lilly "sucks ***" who is going to want him at 11 a year and getting older?

I'm only talking about the last year and of course we would eat some salary. what am I supposed to be? a pessimist?

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 05:29 PM
Would everyone agree that Lilly is probably a #3 starter? If so, in terms of dollars per year, it isn't that off. Say what you will, but in today's MLB, a #3 starter is an 7.5,8-11 million a year investment. Look at some of these guys who I believe are #3 starters:

Randy Wolf-- nearly 10 million per year
Jason Marquis-- 7.5 million per year
Joel Pineiro-- 8 million per year
Ben Sheets-- 10 million
Randy Johnson (2008 at 47)-- 8 million
Oliver Perez-- 12 million

Lilly's contract falls right in line with other #3 starters.

except that none of those guys are number 3 starters on a half decent team

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 05:31 PM
that's why he doesn't have a no trade clause the last year so if he sucks *** we can ship him out of here.

he has 10-5 rights, and who is going to want a 37 year old making 11 a million if he sucks in L.A.?

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 05:33 PM
And you know Lilly wouldnt have accepted arbitration because....

Because he was going after a 3 year deal, obviously....he signed one.

A guy that would accept arb is a guy that is willing to take a season to redeem themselves, not a guy coming off one of his best seasons and is looking for some long term financial stability. There is no way he would have accepted arb. Someone was going to give him a multi-year deal, just should have been a team in a better position to win in the next two years where Lilly could be a 4th or 5th starter

RTL
10-20-2010, 05:34 PM
Are you comparing 38 year old, potential hall of fame destined pitcher Andy Pettitte, who last signed a multi year deal when he was 31 to Ted Lilly? Who has never had a season as good as Pettitte's 4 best seasons? And has only had 3, maybe 4 actually productive seasons in his career? Pettitte is twice the pitcher, and has had twice the career as Lilly, and you are really gonna compare their contracts and effectiveness to justify this latest travesty?


Pardon me while I :laugh:

I am comparing soft throwing lefties in their late 30's. Pettitte is making more at age 38 than Lilly will be making at age 37 so yes they are comparable. I'm not comparing careers but nice try. Everyone knows Pettitte has had the Hall of Good career, not Lilly. Lilly was the best lefty on the market not named Cliff Lee and the man is taking a paycut from his $13 million he made last year. If he went to arbitration, he would definitely be making more than $11 million so its not wise to say he cost the Dodgers two draft picks since he would most likely have accepted arbitration. Plus what the Dodgers gave up for Lilly wasn't that special in the first place.

The Dodgers now have a good starting three which is going in the right direction for winning while they have their core of players there. They aren't going to have Kemp, Ethier, Billingsley and Kershaw forever. They need to win now and since Colletti has said payroll will increase, I don't see this as a huge problem. This contract is not bad at all considering what he is taking a paycut and will thrive in that ballpark and division.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 05:36 PM
And you know Lilly wouldnt have accepted arbitration because....

He thought there are general managers as dumb as Colletti?

I'm sorry, but offering Lilly arbitration is a win-win.

If he accepts, you get him for one more reasonable year, no big deal.

If he doesn't, compensation.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 05:43 PM
I am comparing soft throwing lefties in their late 30's. Pettitte is making more at age 38 than Lilly will be making at age 37 so yes they are comparable. I'm not comparing careers but nice try. Everyone knows Pettitte has had the Hall of Good career, not Lilly. Lilly was the best lefty on the market not named Cliff Lee and the man is taking a paycut from his $13 million he made last year. If he went to arbitration, he would definitely be making more than $11 million so its not wise to say he cost the Dodgers two draft picks since he would most likely have accepted arbitration. Plus what the Dodgers gave up for Lilly wasn't that special in the first place.

The Dodgers now have a good starting three which is going in the right direction for winning while they have their core of players there. They aren't going to have Kemp, Ethier, Billingsley and Kershaw forever. They need to win now and since Colletti has said payroll will increase, I don't see this as a huge problem. This contract is not bad at all considering what he is taking a paycut and will thrive in that ballpark and division.

Again, there is no way that Lilly would have accepted arb. You just said he was the best left hander not named Cliff Lee going to free agency, so why on earth would he? He got a 3 year deal, tell me, someone else wouldn't have given him that? And he made 12 million the last two years, not 13...but that doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter what you gave up for him, the Dodgers wanted to try to win the division...it was a good trade at the time. But retaining him as he declines, and paying that much for him, instead of taking two young draft picks and building the team toward the future is just poor management. This is a team with great financial strain and are showing they can't spend any money...so are the limited resources going to their number 4 starter? Tell me there aren't better in house options over the next three seasons, and tell me two young draft picks wouldn't be a better direction.

And of course I am going to compare their careers, future earnings are based on predictive performance and past performance. You brought up the comparison, I followed through :confused:

The Dodgers are not in a position to start winning, they are a 3rd to 4th place team in the NL West right now. They have good, core young players, but they won't be winning the division in the next three years, the best way to shoot for winning the division in four years....build from within

You want to keep Etheir, Kemp, Kershaw, Billings for as long as you can, tell me, don't you think 33 million would be a good start?


And even if he did accept arb....oh well, then you have him for 2011 anyway, the issue isn't 11, it is 2013, when this contract is most likely to look bad.

It makes no sense to not offer him arb, and let him test free agency....if no one comes after him, offer him a one or two year deal for the cheap, or take your draft picks.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 05:46 PM
I'd like to see the Dodgers compete in a good division without a 1B, 2B, SS (unless they plan on counting on Furcal), 3B, LF, catcher and 40% of a starting rotation, all the while with financial problems.

C-ross12
10-20-2010, 05:49 PM
I'm only talking about the last year and of course we would eat some salary. what am I supposed to be? a pessimist?

Well maybe.. I mean it may turn out alright, no one on here really knows. Hell, maybe he turns in 3 sub 3.5 era years in a row. We dont know for sure. We can say, however, that its not a smart move because there is a reasonable chance that Lilly regresses, and that 11 a year starts to weigh you down. Its just not smart business to sign an older pitcher to a a mid-term deal.

I'd have to believe that someone is telling Ned that this is not a terrible risk. If I had to assume what happened, this would be it. A group of Ned Colletti advisors sit down with him for a meeting. They start discussing mid rotation options. They are quite pleased with how Lilly performed for them. They, because of team scouts or whatnot, told Ned co that "Lilly is a smaller risk then others think." With Arbitration unclear, and them not having to give compensation for another mid rotation starter (IE De Le Rosa mold) they decide to go with Lilly.

Again, Lilly hasn't exactly sucked, so its not a cut and dry terrible deal. I wouldn't have done it, but then again im sitting on PSD pretending to know what happens in a GM advisor meeting. :D

RTL
10-20-2010, 06:03 PM
Again, there is no way that Lilly would have accepted arb. You just said he was the best left hander not named Cliff Lee going to free agency, so why on earth would he? He got a 3 year deal, tell me, someone else wouldn't have given him that? And he made 12 million the last two years, not 13...but that doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter what you gave up for him, the Dodgers wanted to try to win the division...it was a good trade at the time. But retaining him as he declines, and paying that much for him, instead of taking two young draft picks and building the team toward the future is just poor management. This is a team with great financial strain and are showing they can't spend any money...so are the limited resources going to their number 4 starter? Tell me there aren't better in house options over the next three seasons, and tell me two young draft picks wouldn't be a better direction.

And of course I am going to compare their careers, future earnings are based on predictive performance and past performance. You brought up the comparison, I followed through :confused:

The Dodgers are not in a position to start winning, they are a 3rd to 4th place team in the NL West right now. They have good, core young players, but they won't be winning the division in the next three years, the best way to shoot for winning the division in four years....build from within

You want to keep Etheir, Kemp, Kershaw, Billings for as long as you can, tell me, don't you think 33 million would be a good start?


And even if he did accept arb....oh well, then you have him for 2011 anyway, the issue isn't 11, it is 2013, when this contract is most likely to look bad.

It makes no sense to not offer him arb, and let him test free agency....if no one comes after him, offer him a one or two year deal for the cheap, or take your draft picks.

Again, you have no clue that he wouldn't have accepted arbitration. According to the two websites I go to for payroll, Lilly made $13 million the past two years. If offered arbitration, he would have made around $15 million. That's why he would have accepted it! No way would he make near that on the open market. No way he would have made near what he got in his three year deal from another team either because he was a Type A free agent and a team would have had to give up draft picks. This is a win-win for both sides here. Dodgers get a solid #3 for three years for not a lot of money and not a lot of years.

Dodgers can rebuild after their core leaves them which they are more likely to do so why not try to win while you have them? Ethier and Kemp have already expressed their intent on leaving. Lilly only helps them win now, not hurts them. Pitchers like him don't decline that rapidly. He's not a power pitcher who flames out in his late 30's. He sure hasn't shown he is declining the past two years either. Don't see it falling off the table anytime soon. How are the Dodgers not in line to win anything anytime soon? Because their offense underachieved greatly this season? Did you see the Padres being in line to win anything in '10? Didn't think so. You have to win now while you have your best shot. Its not poor management, its trying to win while you still have the talent to compete. These two draft picks the Dodgers could have had most likely weren't going to be any sort of factor in the Dodgers success with Ethier, Kemp, Kershaw and Billingsley. Dodgers are not hurting in any way because of this deal. Two years of Lilly was one year of Manny so no loss, all reward. Not to mention, this is only the first move by the Dodgers. Can't say they can't win now when free agency hasn't even started. Extremely absurd.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 06:11 PM
Again, you have no clue that he wouldn't have accepted arbitration. According to the two websites I go to for payroll, Lilly made $13 million the past two years. If offered arbitration, he would have made around $15 million. That's why he would have accepted it! No way would he make near that on the open market. No way he would have made near what he got in his three year deal from another team either because he was a Type A free agent and a team would have had to give up draft picks. This is a win-win for both sides here. Dodgers get a solid #3 for three years for not a lot of money and not a lot of years.

Dodgers can rebuild after their core leaves them which they are more likely to do so why not try to win while you have them? Ethier and Kemp have already expressed their intent on leaving. Lilly only helps them win now, not hurts them. Pitchers like him don't decline that rapidly. He's not a power pitcher who flames out in his late 30's. He sure hasn't shown he is declining the past two years either. Don't see it falling off the table anytime soon. How are the Dodgers not in line to win anything anytime soon? Because their offense underachieved greatly this season? Did you see the Padres being in line to win anything in '10? Didn't think so. You have to win now while you have your best shot. Its not poor management, its trying to win while you still have the talent to compete. These two draft picks the Dodgers could have had most likely weren't going to be any sort of factor in the Dodgers success with Ethier, Kemp, Kershaw and Billingsley. Dodgers are not hurting in any way because of this deal. Two years of Lilly was one year of Manny so no loss, all reward.

You should go to Cot's, his base was 12, he had some incentives that pushed him to 13. His base is what would be affected in arb, not his total incentive based salary.

And if he would make 15 million through arb, which is crazy unlikely, it's still better than paying the guy 33 million for 3 years.

For the player, why would he take a one year deal when he was obviously looking for, and got a 3 year deal? It is a win-win if you offer him arb.

And I'm sorry, but why the **** would a team wait to rebuild? That is possibly the most ******** thing I have heard on here yet. If you know you are heading toward rebuilding, don't half ***, you do it, you go full throttle. You retain the young studs you do have, and drop all veterans that are overpaid any way you can, you don't offer multi year deals to guys in their mid 30's. And the Dodgers are not in a position to 'win now' and if fans or management think that, that is insane. This team has a lot of holes, and unless they are prepared to spend some serious cash this winter on free agency, they won't be winning in 2011. They are inferior to the Rockies, Padres, and Giants...although you can assume the Padres might regress a bit.

Lock up Kershaw, Ethier and Kemp, and build the team around those guys, once payroll can be shed, the team can really invest in their minor leagues so there can be future Kershaw's and Kemps.

If three years of overpaying Lilly is worth more than the two draft picks long term and the 33 million dollar investment is better than conserving that money and investing in long term success, then by all means, the Dodgers can enjoy Lilly. It simply isn't good baseball management.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 06:15 PM
I'm sorry, he made 12, but his signing bonus was spread out in his last contract.

He got a one million dollar signing bonus the first of each year, so his base pay was 12 in 2010

VRP723
10-20-2010, 06:23 PM
I'd like to see the Dodgers compete in a good division without a 1B, 2B, SS (unless they plan on counting on Furcal), 3B, LF, catcher and 40% of a starting rotation, all the while with financial problems.

Your entire franchise got turned around by a buy low 1B and a few small signings and trades, don't act like you're leaps and bounds ahead of us. And why don't why have a 3B? Because Blake had a slightly below average year, please, he's much beter than he was this year, not quite as good as he was in 2009, but he's solid.

RTL
10-20-2010, 06:28 PM
And I'm sorry, but why the **** would a team wait to rebuild? That is possibly the most ******** thing I have heard on here yet. If you know you are heading toward rebuilding, don't half ***, you do it, you go full throttle. You retain the young studs you do have, and drop all veterans that are overpaid any way you can, you don't offer multi year deals to guys in their mid 30's. And the Dodgers are not in a position to 'win now' and if fans or management think that, that is insane. This team has a lot of holes, and unless they are prepared to spend some serious cash this winter on free agency, they won't be winning in 2011. They are inferior to the Rockies, Padres, and Giants...although you can assume the Padres might regress a bit.

Lock up Kershaw, Ethier and Kemp, and build the team around those guys, once payroll can be shed, the team can really invest in their minor leagues so there can be future Kershaw's and Kemps.

If three years of overpaying Lilly is worth more than the two draft picks long term and the 33 million dollar investment is better than conserving that money and investing in long term success, then by all means, the Dodgers can enjoy Lilly. It simply isn't good baseball management.

You wait to rebuild because you have the talent to win now!!! Why throw away the next few seasons on the off chance these two drafts picks you could have (no certainty) acquired pan out? Again, your core of talent will be long gone by the time these draft picks ever came close to making the big show. You keep saying lock up Ethier and Kemp but they want out of LA. If they wanted to start rebuilding, they would trade these two and not have signed Lilly but that's not the case.

Saying the Dodgers are not in a position to win now while free agency hasn't started is the insane or "********" thing here. The Dodgers now have a good starting three which in the NL West is huge!! Lilly is now the second best #3 guy in the division. Colletti has already come out and said the payroll will increase so the Dodgers have every intention on competing in 2011. Plus after next year, they will have more money coming off the books. A possibility of two draft picks is not enough to forfeit a whole season. I'm sorry. Saying the Dodgers can't compete when the World Series hasn't even started is just completely ridiculous.

Did you have the Padres finishing 2nd last year?

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 06:39 PM
Your entire franchise got turned around by a buy low 1B and a few small signings and trades, don't act like you're leaps and bounds ahead of us. And why don't why have a 3B? Because Blake had a slightly below average year, please, he's much beter than he was this year, not quite as good as he was in 2009, but he's solid.

This is a good point. Giants got awfully lucky this year. However, it's not the recipe for success. Good luck getting a career minor leaguer to be a 6 WAR player next year, and a couple zombies having career years.

That being said, the Rockies are still the best team in this division.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 06:43 PM
Your entire franchise got turned around by a buy low 1B and a few small signings and trades, don't act like you're leaps and bounds ahead of us. And why don't why have a 3B? Because Blake had a slightly below average year, please, he's much beter than he was this year, not quite as good as he was in 2009, but he's solid.

he also lined out more than any other player in all of baseball this year.

A lot of those would be hits in a normal season

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 06:45 PM
You wait to rebuild because you have the talent to win now!!! Why throw away the next few seasons on the off chance these two drafts picks you could have (no certainty) acquired pan out? Again, your core of talent will be long gone by the time these draft picks ever came close to making the big show. You keep saying lock up Ethier and Kemp but they want out of LA. If they wanted to start rebuilding, they would trade these two and not have signed Lilly but that's not the case.

Saying the Dodgers are not in a position to win now while free agency hasn't started is the insane or "********" thing here. The Dodgers now have a good starting three which in the NL West is huge!! Lilly is now the second best #3 guy in the division. Colletti has already come out and said the payroll will increase so the Dodgers have every intention on competing in 2011. Plus after next year, they will have more money coming off the books. A possibility of two draft picks is not enough to forfeit a whole season. I'm sorry. Saying the Dodgers can't compete when the World Series hasn't even started is just completely ridiculous.

Did you have the Padres finishing 2nd last year?

Sorry, but the Dodgers are not really in a position to win in 2011.

Anything can certainly happen, but this signing isn't a good choice.

And aren't you a Giants fan?

You should be loving this move

VRP723
10-20-2010, 06:49 PM
This is a good point. Giants got awfully lucky this year. However, it's not the recipe for success. Good luck getting a career minor leaguer to be a 6 WAR player next year, and a couple zombies having career years.

That being said, the Rockies are still the best team in this division.

Which is my point, good luck having him do it again.

RTL
10-20-2010, 06:49 PM
The Dodgers offense as a whole underachieved, not just Blake.

RTL
10-20-2010, 06:55 PM
Sorry, but the Dodgers are not really in a position to win in 2011.

Anything can certainly happen, but this signing isn't a good choice.

And aren't you a Giants fan?

You should be loving this move

I said the same thing about the Padres this year and the Dodgers have a lot more talent than the Padres do. But I also said that near spring training and not while free agency hasn't started yet. With an increased payroll, the Dodgers have a lot room to improve. Talk to me in March if the Dodgers are or are not in a good position. Then we will have a better picture:)

Lilly, in that ballpark, is a good thing

I am a Giants fan but a baseball first. I think this was a good signing for the Dodgers. Got the second best lefty on the market for less annually than he made last year. We just disagree on the signing, no big deal. Lot worse things in this world;)

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 06:57 PM
You should go to Cot's, his base was 12, he had some incentives that pushed him to 13. His base is what would be affected in arb, not his total incentive based salary.

And if he would make 15 million through arb, which is crazy unlikely, it's still better than paying the guy 33 million for 3 years.

For the player, why would he take a one year deal when he was obviously looking for, and got a 3 year deal? It is a win-win if you offer him arb.

And I'm sorry, but why the **** would a team wait to rebuild? That is possibly the most ******** thing I have heard on here yet. If you know you are heading toward rebuilding, don't half ***, you do it, you go full throttle. You retain the young studs you do have, and drop all veterans that are overpaid any way you can, you don't offer multi year deals to guys in their mid 30's. And the Dodgers are not in a position to 'win now' and if fans or management think that, that is insane. This team has a lot of holes, and unless they are prepared to spend some serious cash this winter on free agency, they won't be winning in 2011. They are inferior to the Rockies, Padres, and Giants...although you can assume the Padres might regress a bit.

Lock up Kershaw, Ethier and Kemp, and build the team around those guys, once payroll can be shed, the team can really invest in their minor leagues so there can be future Kershaw's and Kemps.

If three years of overpaying Lilly is worth more than the two draft picks long term and the 33 million dollar investment is better than conserving that money and investing in long term success, then by all means, the Dodgers can enjoy Lilly. It simply isn't good baseball management.

Because Colletti comes from the Sabean School of General Managing.

As for the Dodgers core, the only players I would keep if I were them would be Kemp, Billingsley, Kershaw and perhaps Broxton.

Ethier will be turning 29 next year and is just a liability in the field. I think they could get a great package for him if they traded him to the AL.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 06:58 PM
Which is my point, good luck having him do it again.

I don't know what this has to do with the Giants, since we're talking about the Dodgers.

As for the Giants, we have our own superstar in the making along with another high quality prospect on the way, so I'm not too worried. We're in a much better position than LA.

VRP723
10-20-2010, 07:11 PM
I don't know what this has to do with the Giants, since we're talking about the Dodgers.

As for the Giants, we have our own superstar in the making along with another high quality prospect on the way, so I'm not too worried. We're in a much better position than LA.

All I was doing was responding to your comment about us not having a chance to compete next year. I wasn't the one who brought up the NL West race, you were.

And I would agree, you are in better shape, but its not insurmountable. That's my point.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 07:13 PM
I said the same thing about the Padres this year and the Dodgers have a lot more talent than the Padres do. But I also said that near spring training and not while free agency hasn't started yet. With an increased payroll, the Dodgers have a lot room to improve. Talk to me in March if the Dodgers are or are not in a good position. Then we will have a better picture:)

Lilly, in that ballpark, is a good thing

I am a Giants fan but a baseball first. I think this was a good signing for the Dodgers. Got the second best lefty on the market for less annually than he made last year. We just disagree on the signing, no big deal. Lot worse things in this world;)

There is a really big difference between a team that has been rebuilding, and a team holding on and not willing to admit it's time to rebuild.

A winning season by a rebuilding team is very different, and creates a different long term plan

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 07:15 PM
I am a Giants fan but a baseball first. I think this was a good signing for the Dodgers. Got the second best lefty on the market for less annually than he made last year. We just disagree on the signing, no big deal. Lot worse things in this world;)

agreed

and then I agree even more so with gigantes post

RTL
10-20-2010, 07:25 PM
That's fine even though they already have a SS, 3B and 1B. They definitely have holes but also have the means to fill them. I would re-sign Kuroda next to fill out the rotation then concentrate on getting a catcher to catch these pitchers.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 07:26 PM
All I was doing was responding to your comment about us not having a chance to compete next year. I wasn't the one who brought up the NL West race, you were.

And I would agree, you are in better shape, but its not insurmountable. That's my point.

It's not insurmountable, but it would be wiser to rebuild, or re-tool if you prefer that team.

That's the problem with the Dodgers right now. Lack of depth. You need complimentary players to succeed, especially in the NL West. There's way too many holes on that team with no real superstar.

And yes, the difference between the two teams isn't insurmountable. Unfortunately, the Rockies are the most talented team in the division.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 07:27 PM
BTW, VRP, I assume Loney will get non-tendered right?

VRP723
10-20-2010, 07:39 PM
BTW, VRP, I assume Loney will get non-tendered right?

No, teams actually appear to be interested. I heard the Nationals will go after him hard haha.

Sherrill, Martin and hopefully Theriot will be non-tendered.

Jeffy25
10-20-2010, 07:43 PM
BTW, VRP, I assume Loney will get non-tendered right?

he should, as a part of the rebuilding, that is what they SHOULD do.

I bet they give him a two year deal though :facepalm:

VRP723
10-20-2010, 07:45 PM
he should, as a part of the rebuilding, that is what they SHOULD do.

I bet they give him a two year deal though :facepalm:

As part of rebuilding we should cut our first baseman that other teams are clearly interested in. You're on a roll today.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 07:46 PM
As part of rebuilding we should cut our first baseman that other teams are clearly interested in. You're on a roll today.

I feel like that interest will be minimal. I don't see why anyone would give up anything too significant for a backup 1B.

VRP723
10-20-2010, 07:49 PM
I feel like that interest will be minimal. I don't see why anyone would give up anything too significant for a backup 1B.

The Mariners wanted him in any deal for Lee, and the Nationals said they planned on going after him hard if they can't resign Dunn.

Surprisingly enough, I think we could actually get value from him.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 07:52 PM
The Mariners wanted him in any deal for Lee, and the Nationals said they planned on going after him hard if they can't resign Dunn.

Surprisingly enough, I think we could actually get value from him.

I get the feeling Loney wasn't the main part of the Lee package however. Kershaw? Kemp?

VRP723
10-20-2010, 07:54 PM
I get the feeling Loney wasn't the main part of the Lee package however. Kershaw? Kemp?

Bills or Loney and Dee was it I believe

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 07:57 PM
Bills or Loney and Dee was it I believe

Yeah I don't buy that Seattle would have done that.

Although Billingsley maybe.

RTL
10-20-2010, 07:59 PM
Loney will get arbitration and is not a hole in the 2011 lineup. He's cheap, young, a good defender and can hit.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:01 PM
I definitely like my 1B slugging under .400 with an OBP below average.

RTL
10-20-2010, 08:06 PM
I'll take a 26 yr old with 41 doubles and good defense with only room for improvement. Not going to cut him that's for sure:laugh: Matt Kemp had a disappointing year too. Cut him!!

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:10 PM
Here's the difference: Matt Kemp has actually shown that he has the talent to succeed in the major leagues. James Loney is a below average player who will never be anything more than a career backup.

VRP723
10-20-2010, 08:12 PM
Here's the difference: Matt Kemp has actually shown that he has the talent to succeed in the major leagues. James Loney is a below average player who will never be anything more than a career backup.

This is pretty much correct, but I can confidence we can fool someone into thinking he has value.

RTL
10-20-2010, 08:19 PM
Here's the difference: Matt Kemp has actually shown that he has the talent to succeed in the major leagues. James Loney is a below average player who will never be anything more than a career backup.

Loney has shown he can hit in the MLB and he makes his infield defense that much better. Guys who can drive in close to 90 runs a year are not holes in any teams lineups, definitely not backups but keep thinking what ever you want. Guess you can't keep me on ignore:laugh:

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:22 PM
Loney has shown he can hit in the MLB and he makes his infield defense that much better. Guys who can drive in close to 90 runs a year are not holes in any teams lineups, definitely not backups but keep thinking what ever you want. Guess you can't keep me on ignore:laugh:

Nope, I took you off.

Using RBI to judge baseball players. :laugh2:

CHRISDODGERS
10-20-2010, 08:29 PM
Loney should have pitched :(

RTL
10-20-2010, 08:34 PM
I didn't use RBI but used the ability to drive in runs! Way to stick to your guns:laugh:

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:37 PM
I didn't use RBI but used the ability to drive in runs! Way to stick to your guns:laugh:


Guys who can drive in close to 90 runs a year

:laugh2:

RTL
10-20-2010, 08:38 PM
Yep, ability to drive in runs:laugh:

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:40 PM
You mean the ability to have players get on base in front of you? Loney is so good at getting Andre Ethier and Manny Ramirez on base so he can get him in with occasional singles and groundouts!

RTL
10-20-2010, 08:43 PM
No, the ability to drive in those runners in front of you by hitting .327 and .864 OPS with RISP or with the 32 doubles he averages a year. Keep trying, he's not a hole on the field.

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:46 PM
If you make an out 67.1% of the time and play 1B, you're a hole in the lineup.

RTL
10-20-2010, 08:50 PM
OK, cut him!! Don't need that defense or ability to drive in runs for cheap and has potential to get better!! Now keep your word and put me back on ignore. I can't put you on ignore:(

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 08:56 PM
Alright this is from True Blue LA, the Dodgers SBN blog:


Don't think I'm not rooting for Loney to get exactly four home runs and 10 RBI in 99 plate appearances the rest of this season, just for the statistical oddity. At this point, with Loney you pretty much know what you're going to get. The question is, is it good enough?

Loney is a slightly above average major league hitter overall, but among first baseman he is far below average. In 2010, for instance, all first basemen in MLB have a cumulative 121 OPS+. There are 20 players in baseball who over the last three seasons have started a total of 250 or more games at first base. Among those players, Loney ranks 19th out of 20, with a 103 OPS+. Only Casey Kotchman (88 OPS+) has been worse, offensively.

Using wOBA from Fangraphs, here are Loney's ranks among qualified first basemen each year:

2008: .333 (22nd out of 27)
2009: .332 (23rd out of 25)
2010: .321 (24th out of 26)
Offensively, it's hard to come to a conclusion other than that Loney is well below average among his peers at first base.



I wanted to believe Loney would turn the corner this season. Even though he slugged .399 last season, he also had a career-high 70 walks. However, it is looking more and more like last season was the outlier in Loney's patience at the plate:

More:


Joe Torre has often said that he likes James Loney as a hitter, and thinks the power will come, and in fact Loney has batted fourth or fifth in 108 of 134 games this season. Torre has also said that Loney is a productive hitter and that "production is all about RBIs," and after all Loney does lead the club with 80 runs batted in this season. However, while Torre has been involved in nearly 7,000 major league games as a player or manager, it doesn't mean he can't be completely wrong some of the time.

Yes, Loney does have 80 RBI this season, and he has hit well with runners in scoring position (.333/.416/.467 this year and .326/.405/.479 in his career), but that doesn't make him a productive hitter. Runs batted in are largely a function of opportunity, and in fact Loney has batted with 400 runners on base this season, more than anyone in the National League. He also batted with the seventh-most runners on base in the NL in 2009, and the fifth-most in 2008. The bottom line is that Loney gets his RBI because he has more runners to drive in than just about anyone else.

However, there is more to baseball than just hitting. Where Loney shines, at least superficially, is with the glove. I love watching him scoop throws at first base, or start a double play. But even if Loney is great, just how great is he? Is it enough to overcome his offensive deficiencies? Here are Loney's defensive numbers from a variety of sources:


Year Plus/Minus UZR Rfield Total Zone
2008 -1 -7.7 -3 -3
2009 +4 +2.7 +6 +7
2010 +1 +1.4 0 n/a

Defensively, Loney looks to be above average, but certainly not near the top of the league by any stretch. So what we have in Loney is a well below average hitter for his position who is at or slightly above average defensively. What does that mean in total?

We have a few different sources for and a few permutations of Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in Fangraphs, Baseball-Reference, and Baseball Prospectus. Fangraphs is the only one that allows sorting, so the ranking among first basemen will be from Fangraphs. Here are Loney's numbers for the last three seasons:

2008: -0.1 Baseball-Reference / 1.0 Baseball Prospectus / 0.7 Fangraphs (21st among MLB 1B)
2009: 1.7 / 2.1 / 1.6 (21st)
2010: 0.9 / 0.7 / 1.1 (20th)
Another factor to consider with Loney is that, while his offensive production has stayed the same every year, his salary has not. After making $411,000 and $465,000 in 2008 and 2009, respectively, Loney hit arbitration eligibility for the first time this winter, settling with the club for $3.1 million for 2010. He has two more seasons of arbitration eligibility left, and figures to make between $4.5 million and $5 million next season, if not more.

VRP723
10-20-2010, 09:01 PM
You mean the ability to have players get on base in front of you? Loney is so good at getting Andre Ethier and Manny Ramirez on base so he can get him in with occasional singles and groundouts!

Borderline sig-quote worthy.

RTL
10-20-2010, 09:05 PM
So because Loney does actually come through in these opportunities doesn't make him productive. Got it!! Now I understand. I mean, he could NOT come through at as high of a rate but I get it. Cut him!! Should have been cut by now!! Cut this 26 year old now!!!!!!!!!

Gigantes4Life
10-20-2010, 09:08 PM
Borderline sig-quote worthy.

:)


So because Loney does actually come through in these opportunities doesn't make him productive. Got it!! Now I understand. I mean, he could NOT come through at as high of a rate but I get it. Cut him!! Should have been cut by now!! Cut this 26 year old now!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, giving a below average player that high of a salary is a mistake. Especially when over 90% of the league's 1B are better than him.

iggypop123
10-20-2010, 11:24 PM
wow what happened to this thread?

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 12:35 AM
As part of rebuilding we should cut our first baseman that other teams are clearly interested in. You're on a roll today.

If you want to continue to pay up for a guy that is a .750 hitter for the last three seasons...if you think you can tender him a one year deal, and then trade him this season.

No fan wants to hear it is time to rebuild their organization, but the Dodgers really should go full throttle toward it....and that includes not giving Loney 5 million for next season. If you can negotiate a one year, 3.5 million dollar deal with him, and attempt to trade him during the season to somewhere he would like to go, hopefully getting something back of any return (mid level minor leaguer) But Loney doesn't really represent any long term value to the club.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 12:42 AM
I'll take a 26 yr old with 41 doubles and good defense with only room for improvement. Not going to cut him that's for sure:laugh: Matt Kemp had a disappointing year too. Cut him!!

the 2007. 23 year old James Loney looked like he would do that consistently. But the last three seasons we have realized that he is a below league average quality first basemen. And his defense isn't that great, he doesn't even have a 2 WAR season, he doesn't slug .400 even, and he doesn't get on base nearly enough.

He may not be a hole in the lineup, but you want solid production from your first basemen, and Loney isn't that guy....and to act like he will continue to improve? 3 seasons in a row is a pretty good sample size, and turning 27 in May, tells he won't likely be getting a whole lot better.

This isn't a Dodger hatred conversation, you have some great young studs, but Loney is below average at first, realistically, he is in the bottom 10 of the league of quality at first base. The team should be rebuilding, and putting their investments toward players that could be great in 3-6 years. What do you think Loney's production will be like by then? I bet he continues to decline. I don't like the idea of writing off guys only 26 years old, but he isn't really that valuable to other teams, maybe a throw in a trade to a team that needs first base depth. You could find a ton of players that can defensively play first base, and put up better offensive production to play first base for less than 5 mil for 2011

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 12:52 AM
Alright this is from True Blue LA, the Dodgers SBN blog:



More:

Absolute win.

If they do tender him a one year deal, they should try to ship him off at whatever cost this season. But the potential from 07 is gone. If he could effectively play an outfield position, his bat wouldn't look so bad...but his defense at a weak position isn't even that great, and his offense, while for the league is average, at first, it is just dreadful.

For a team to commit to rebuilding, it wouldn't be wise to retain him. But he is a popular player, so keeping him around for the right price if no one else can be brought in, then sure....why not. But I wouldn't take him on any of my four favorite teams, even for free....he would simply be a limited back up, who hasn't shown that he can effectively play anywhere but first. You simply need more production from first base.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 12:59 AM
If you want to continue to pay up for a guy that is a .750 hitter for the last three seasons...if you think you can tender him a one year deal, and then trade him this season.

No fan wants to hear it is time to rebuild their organization, but the Dodgers really should go full throttle toward it....and that includes not giving Loney 5 million for next season. If you can negotiate a one year, 3.5 million dollar deal with him, and attempt to trade him during the season to somewhere he would like to go, hopefully getting something back of any return (mid level minor leaguer) But Loney doesn't really represent any long term value to the club.

This will be my last comment, just so I don't have to deal with the flip flopping and ignoring my comments backed with facts, but like I said, TWO TEAMS IN THE PAST THREE MONTHS HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN LONEY. Why would you non-tender a player who other teams are interested in? How is that a "Step in the right direction towards rebuilding"

That makes no sense. None.

RTL
10-21-2010, 01:07 AM
the 2007. 23 year old James Loney looked like he would do that consistently. But the last three seasons we have realized that he is a below league average quality first basemen. And his defense isn't that great, he doesn't even have a 2 WAR season, he doesn't slug .400 even, and he doesn't get on base nearly enough.

He may not be a hole in the lineup, but you want solid production from your first basemen, and Loney isn't that guy....and to act like he will continue to improve? 3 seasons in a row is a pretty good sample size, and turning 27 in May, tells he won't likely be getting a whole lot better.

This isn't a Dodger hatred conversation, you have some great young studs, but Loney is below average at first, realistically, he is in the bottom 10 of the league of quality at first base. The team should be rebuilding, and putting their investments toward players that could be great in 3-6 years. What do you think Loney's production will be like by then? I bet he continues to decline. I don't like the idea of writing off guys only 26 years old, but he isn't really that valuable to other teams, maybe a throw in a trade to a team that needs first base depth. You could find a ton of players that can defensively play first base, and put up better offensive production to play first base for less than 5 mil for 2011

I'm just not one to write off a 26 year old who can play good defense and can drive in runs. Too many players throughout history have gotten better after their third full season in the big leagues. I'm not calling Loney great or even an All Star, just the fact that he is not a hole in the lineup. I'm also not a believer that you HAVE to have production from a certain position. You don't.

And the Dodgers are not rebuilding. If they were, Kemp, Ethier and Loney would all be long. The Dodgers are increasing payroll, not rebuilding. With a solid rotation like they have now, they will be competitive.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:12 AM
This will be my last comment, just so I don't have to deal with the flip flopping and ignoring my comments backed with facts, but like I said, TWO TEAMS IN THE PAST THREE MONTHS HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN LONEY. Why would you non-tender a player who other teams are interested in? How is that a "Step in the right direction towards rebuilding"

That makes no sense. None.

you can not prove that interest. What we can prove is what he produces, and makes and the direction of the club.

You were not ignored, but Loney is no more than a throw in a trade.

As I said, I would tender him a small one year deal, and work toward trading him to a mutually decided team and try to get any level of minor leaguer back that I can. And if the team is producing at the first half and comes out surprising everybody, then it wouldn't be so bad to hold on to him for the season. But to give him 5 million or more would be an absolute mistake, and if I couldn't work out a deal for under 4 million for 2011, I would let him walk.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:20 AM
I'm just not one to write off a 26 year old who can play good defense and can drive in runs. Too many players throughout history have gotten better after their third full season in the big leagues. I'm not calling Loney great or even an All Star, just the fact that he is not a hole in the lineup. I'm also not a believer that you HAVE to have production from a certain position. You don't.

And the Dodgers are not rebuilding. If they were, Kemp, Ethier and Loney would all be long. The Dodgers are increasing payroll, not rebuilding. With a solid rotation like they have now, they will be competitive.

The reason he needs to produce for being a first basemen is that you can literally find anyone else to play first base for very little money and can produce better. Hell, Branyan was landed for what, 5 million?

And his defense isn't anything special, league average is about it.

And the run producer aspect isn't really true. I could put any league average hitter in the spot he has been hitting, and he would be driving in that many runs. Again, he had the most at bats of anyone with runners on base this season.


And big difference between what the team SHOULD be doing (rebuilding) and what they are doing. This season is a sign that they should be heading that way. And I would never get rid of Kershaw or Kemp, rebuilding, you can still hold onto the really young studs....something that Loney and Ethier are not.

RTL
10-21-2010, 01:33 AM
Really? You can just find anyone to hit .327 with RISP. Its not how many ABs he had but what he did in those ABs. He could have easily not produced anything but he does and at a very good rate. I sure what like to see you find any old player to do what he did because I know a lot of teams would love to have you as a GM. You must have the magic touch.

I still think its funny that you are giving the Dodgers no chance to compete next year in October when games are still being played:laugh: Funny, they made the playoffs with Loney in '08 an '09 while getting plenty of production from other places than 1B. I also remember Loney doing quite well. This season is a sign? Because the offense underachieved they should forfeit future seasons?? Erroneous! This team isn't rebuilding now nor should it.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:37 AM
Really? You can just find anyone to hit .327 with RISP. Its not how many ABs he had but what he did in those ABs. He could have easily not produced anything but he does and at a very good rate. I sure what like to see you find any old player to do what he did because I know a lot of teams would love to have you as a GM. You must have the magic touch.

I still think its funny that you are giving the Dodgers no chance to compete next year in October when games are still being played:laugh: Funny, they made the playoffs with Loney in '08 an '09 while getting plenty of production from other places than 1B. I also remember Loney doing quite well. This season is a sign? Because the offense underachieved they should forfeit future seasons?? Erroneous! This team isn't rebuilding now nor should it.

How good were the Cubs in 2009? It was painfully obvious the team should start rebuilding half way through 09, and it wasn't because of one season. It's the depth and direction of the ballclub. and there were in the playoffs in 07 and 08. It's the same situation.

RTL
10-21-2010, 01:38 AM
Except its not. The Cubs had a bunch of aging players under ******** contracts, the Dodgers have a bunch of young talent and no big contracts.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 01:40 AM
you can not prove that interest. What we can prove is what he produces, and makes and the direction of the club.

You were not ignored, but Loney is no more than a throw in a trade.

As I said, I would tender him a small one year deal, and work toward trading him to a mutually decided team and try to get any level of minor leaguer back that I can. And if the team is producing at the first half and comes out surprising everybody, then it wouldn't be so bad to hold on to him for the season. But to give him 5 million or more would be an absolute mistake, and if I couldn't work out a deal for under 4 million for 2011, I would let him walk.

Which is what you say. Bill Ladson, beat writer for the Nationals, says


Ladson also notes that Washington will "go after [James Loney] hard" if the Dodgers put him on the trade market

I'll go with him.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:41 AM
Except its not. The Cubs had a bunch of aging players under ******** contracts, the Dodgers have a bunch of young talent and no big contracts.

what do ******** contracts have to do with needing to rebuild?

They are full of aging veterans with a sprinkle of good young talent, and a sort of thin farm system, they shouldn't be giving multi year deals to guys over 30. They should be focusing on building for the short term future, with Kershaw and Bills and Kemp, and without Loney.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:42 AM
Which is what you say. Bill Ladson, beat writer for the Nationals, says



I'll go with him.

why would the Nationals, with Adam Dunn, a poor defensive first basemen with a great bat, go after James Loney?

And either way, that was then, that isn't now.

Then tender him a contract for one season, and trade him away to somewhere Loney would like to go. Either way, he is a below average first basemen.

RTL
10-21-2010, 01:47 AM
Can't just give huge contracts away and start to rebuild.

The Dodgers aging players are gone after next year except for Lilly, unlike the Cubs predicament. Not a good comparison at all.

Dodgers should be trying to build around the talent they have now while they have a window. Dodgers have all offseason to build a good ballclub. Getting a solid 1-2-3 in the rotation is a great start.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 01:48 AM
why would the Nationals, with Adam Dunn, a poor defensive first basemen with a great bat, go after James Loney?

And either way, that was then, that isn't now.

Then tender him a contract for one season, and trade him away to somewhere Loney would like to go. Either way, he is a below average first basemen.

:laugh2: That article was written 11 days ago. Response?

RTL
10-21-2010, 01:48 AM
why would the Nationals, with Adam Dunn, a poor defensive first basemen with a great bat, go after James Loney?

And either way, that was then, that isn't now.

Then tender him a contract for one season, and trade him away to somewhere Loney would like to go. Either way, he is a below average first basemen.

No, that is now!! Dunn is a free agent.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 01:49 AM
No, that is now!! Dunn is a free agent.

Funny how a Giants fan has a better grasp on the situation than an outsider :laugh2:

RTL
10-21-2010, 01:51 AM
I like to keep up with all teams, especially ones in my division. As a Giants fan I hope they do what Jeffy wishes but its just not in the Dodgers best interest for now.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:53 AM
No, that is now!! Dunn is a free agent.

That post wasn't from the trade deadline?

And, sure, the Nationals might have some interest in the Dodgers

Also, good article on Loney.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/four-factors-james-loney/

Basically, he isn't even close to the praise he gets by Dodgers fans.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 01:53 AM
I like to keep up with all teams, especially ones in my division. As a Giants fan I hope they do what Jeffy wishes but its just not in the Dodgers best interest for now.

Not only that, there is zero chance they cut him, none.

So we can quarrel over whatever we want, it's not happening, they like him too much to release him.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 01:55 AM
That post wasn't from the trade deadline?

And, sure, the Nationals might have some interest in the Dodgers

Also, good article on Loney.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/four-factors-james-loney/

Basically, he isn't even close to the praise he gets by Dodgers fans.

No one's praising him, he's not very good, but OTHER TEAMS WANT HIM. I've said it 6 times, I've showed articles, what else can I do?

Why would you cut someone who has trade value.

And again, I don't want to hear "He probably can only get you blah blah blah" because you, along with myself, have no clue. All we know FOR SURE is that teams have interest in him. Seems like enough of a reason to keep him, right?

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:56 AM
Can't just give huge contracts away and start to rebuild.

The Dodgers aging players are gone after next year except for Lilly, unlike the Cubs predicament. Not a good comparison at all.

Dodgers should be trying to build around the talent they have now while they have a window. Dodgers have all offseason to build a good ballclub. Getting a solid 1-2-3 in the rotation is a great start.

and how are they going to do that?

Buy everyone up in free agency? And they simply need to be investing toward their future, it doesn't mean dump everyone. After 2012 they are basically off the hook for everyone.

I am not saying give up on the team, I am saying, shift the focus on the future, trade away Ethier and Loney if anyone will take them, and not give away contracts to the likes of Lilly for three years.

kinnikuman24
10-21-2010, 01:58 AM
Well then lets look at the rest of the numbers.

Brown:
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV WHIP ERA
1999 LA 35 35 5 1 252.1 210 99 84 19 59 221 18 9 0 0 -- 1.07 3.00
2000 LA 33 33 5 1 230.0 181 76 66 21 47 216 13 6 0 0 -- 0.99 2.58
2001 LA 20 19 1 0 115.2 94 41 34 8 38 104 10 4 0 0 -- 1.14 2.65
2002 LA 17 10 0 0 63.2 68 36 34 9 23 58 3 4 0 1 -- 1.43 4.81
2003 LA 32 32 0 0 211.0 184 67 56 11 56 185 14 9 0 0 -- 1.14 2.39



Zito:
SEASON TEAM G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO W L SV HLD BLSV WHIP ERA
2007 SF 34 33 0 0 196.2 182 105 99 24 83 131 11 13 0 0 -- 1.35 4.53
2008 SF 32 32 0 0 180.0 186 115 103 16 102 120 10 17 0 0 -- 1.60 5.15
2009 SF 33 33 1 0 192.0 179 89 86 21 81 154 10 13 0 0 -- 1.35 4.03
2010 SF 34 33 1 0 199.1 184 97 92 20 84 150 9 14 0 0 -- 1.34 4.15

By far Brown was better then what Zito has provided you guys in his 4 seasons.

i do believe you pwnd him.

RTL
10-21-2010, 02:00 AM
I'm just done arguing that the Dodgers have no chance next year while we are just weeks after the Dodgers last game and free agency hasn't even started yet. Not only that, we're not 100% what the trade market looks like. Its downright foolish to count them. As a Giants fan, I'm not counting the Dodgers out and expect them to compete. Padres taught me a huge lesson this year.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 02:03 AM
I'm just done arguing that the Dodgers have no chance next year while we are just weeks after the Dodgers last game and free agency hasn't even started yet. Not only that, we're not 100% what the trade market looks like. Its downright foolish to count them. As a Giants fan, I'm not counting the Dodgers out and expect them to compete. Padres taught me a huge lesson this year.

I never once said they have no shot, I have said what direction they should be going in. And that doesn't include three year deals to guys in their mid 30's

VRP723
10-21-2010, 02:05 AM
No one's praising him, he's not very good, but OTHER TEAMS WANT HIM. I've said it 6 times, I've showed articles, what else can I do?

Why would you cut someone who has trade value.

And again, I don't want to hear "He probably can only get you blah blah blah" because you, along with myself, have no clue. All we know FOR SURE is that teams have interest in him. Seems like enough of a reason to keep him, right?

Bump

RTL
10-21-2010, 02:09 AM
and how are they going to do that?

Buy everyone up in free agency? And they simply need to be investing toward their future, it doesn't mean dump everyone. After 2012 they are basically off the hook for everyone.

I am not saying give up on the team, I am saying, shift the focus on the future, trade away Ethier and Loney if anyone will take them, and not give away contracts to the likes of Lilly for three years.

Spend their money wisely, that's how.

You don't have to buy everyone up on the market. Over dramatic aren't we? If the Dodgers get a C, 2B, and build the bullpen, no reason they shouldn't be near the top of the West. You are making my point for me. After 2012, everyone's gone! That's why the window is small and need to play for now. When the window is closed, then go full throttle on the future.

You keep saying Loney sucks which according to your logic won;t bring in anything worth a damn so how is that rebuilding? What's a mid level prospect going to do towards the future?

RTL
10-21-2010, 02:15 AM
I never once said they have no shot, I have said what direction they should be going in. And that doesn't include three year deals to guys in their mid 30's

You have repeatedly said they won't win next year. Please don't make me go through old posts. Lilly's deal is not bad. Even SI thinks it was a good deal. They now have a solid #3 or 4 for their tiny window they have for winning.

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2010, 02:45 AM
Spend their money wisely, that's how.

You don't have to buy everyone up on the market. Over dramatic aren't we? If the Dodgers get a C, 2B, and build the bullpen, no reason they shouldn't be near the top of the West. You are making my point for me. After 2012, everyone's gone! That's why the window is small and need to play for now. When the window is closed, then go full throttle on the future.

You keep saying Loney sucks which according to your logic won;t bring in anything worth a damn so how is that rebuilding? What's a mid level prospect going to do towards the future?

You forgot 1B, LF, SP and SP.


You have repeatedly said they won't win next year. Please don't make me go through old posts. Lilly's deal is not bad. Even SI thinks it was a good deal. They now have a solid #3 or 4 for their tiny window they have for winning.

Appeal to authority FTW!

RTL
10-21-2010, 02:55 AM
You forgot 1B, LF, SP and SP.



Appeal to authority FTW!

I didn't forget LF or 1B but you're right I did forget a SP. I think Kuroda will come back for a year

Forgive me if I value their opinion over an 18 year old's. Plus that was just one source.

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2010, 03:00 AM
I didn't forget LF or 1B but you're right I did forget a SP. I think Kuroda will come back for a year

Forgive me if I value their opinion over an 18 year old.

:laugh2:

It's not an opinion (about Loney that is), as he's just not a very good baseball player.

As for Lilly, in terms of market value, this is probably what he's worth after doing some thinking. He's about a 3 WAR talent pitcher right now, and with his age he'll probably be worth about 8 WAR during this contract, so he'll be worth near the 33 (or whatever it is) million that he's going to get paid.

The problem is the direction they're headed, as the Sabean in Colletti is extremely evident here.

RTL
10-21-2010, 03:05 AM
:laugh:
Its only your opinion they need a 1B. They have actual holes to fill so no, I didn't leave out 1B. Funny how the SI comment that you responded to was about Lilly too and not Loney.
The only have a small window to win with the good core they have.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 03:12 AM
:laugh2:

It's not an opinion (about Loney that is), as he's just not a very good baseball player.

As for Lilly, in terms of market value, this is probably what he's worth after doing some thinking. He's about a 3 WAR talent pitcher right now, and with his age he'll probably be worth about 8 WAR during this contract, so he'll be worth near the 33 (or whatever it is) million that he's going to get paid.

The problem is the direction they're headed, as the Sabean in Colletti is extremely evident here.

After some thinking huh? Has nothing to do with the Fangraphs article (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dodgers-re-up-ted-lilly/) about it being a reasonable signing, that predicted he'd be worth an, oh, 8.1 WAR? :D

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2010, 03:18 AM
:laugh:
Its only your opinion they need a 1B. They have actual holes to fill so no, I didn't leave out 1B. Funny how the SI comment that you responded to was about Lilly too and not Loney.
The only have a small window to win with the good core they have.

I suppose it is my opinion. Just like I have the opinion that you probably shouldn't put your head in a microwave.

Again, we already have the numbers. Loney ranked 20th out of 21st for full-time starting 1B in terms of offensive production. I don't like FanGraphs WAR, but it will do for now. Since becoming a full-time starter he's put up seasons of 0.7, 1.6 and 1.1. That is terrible. 2 is what an average full-time player would put up, and he is yet to eclipse that. Factor in "clutch" hitting if you want to, but making outs over 65% of the time from 1B is always a terrible thing.

And as for having a small window, I'll give you that. They have a window. Sure.

But teams need to know when it doesn't make sense. The risk is way too high, because after a couple years they will have a very weak future for a while. It's not like they need to rebuild for 7 years. Kershaw is going to be reaching his prime in a few seasons, and he is the most valuable piece of that franchise. Going for the "window" when two other teams have a much larger window than you in the same division is suicidal in today's game. Their window has been closing ever since Broxton stopped.

RTL
10-21-2010, 03:19 AM
Enough arguing Dodgers baseball for one day.... or week. No one is going to change my mind that the Lilly signing was good and didn't cost them any picks since he was likely to re-sign anyway due to his desire to play there and no one is going to try and argue that the Dodgers aren't going to win next year since fee agency hasn't even started yet. Dodgers have a core of talent for only a small window and need to build around it while they can. They did it in '08 and '09, this year they underachieved.

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2010, 03:23 AM
Enough arguing Dodgers baseball for one day.... or week. No one is going to change my mind that the Lilly signing was good and didn't cost them any picks since he was likely to re-sign anyway due to his desire to play there and no one is going to try and argue that the Dodgers aren't going to win next year since fee agency hasn't even started yet. Dodgers have a core of talent for only a small window and need to build around it while they can. They did it in '08 and '09, this year they underachieved.

And guess who were part of the top 5 most valuable players in those two seasons? Manny Ramirez, Russel Martin, Derek Lowe and Randy Wolf.

RTL
10-21-2010, 03:24 AM
I suppose it is my opinion. Just like I have the opinion that you probably shouldn't put your head in a microwave.


Just as its my opinion your knowledge of the game is only as far as the internet will take you. Without the internet right in front of you, you would know next to dick about this game and how its actually played.

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2010, 03:28 AM
Just as its my opinion your knowledge of the game is only as far as the internet will take you. Without the internet right in front of you, you would know next to dick about this game and how its actually played.

:laugh2:

Alright All-Star.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 03:39 AM
And guess who were part of the top 5 most valuable players in those two seasons? Manny Ramirez, Russel Martin, Derek Lowe and Randy Wolf.

In 2009, really?

Manny had a 2.5 WAR in 2009 in limited action

Russ was worse than he was on pace for this year, 2.2 WAR

Wolf was solid, 3.1 WAR, about the same numbers, hmm, I don't know, Ted Lilly should put up this year :)

And Lowe wasn't on the team.

Any other reason we can't be as good as we were in 2009?

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2010, 03:49 AM
In 2009, really?

Manny had a 2.5 WAR in 2009 in limited action

Russ was worse than he was on pace for this year, 2.2 WAR

Wolf was solid, 3.1 WAR, about the same numbers, hmm, I don't know, Ted Lilly should put up this year :)

And Lowe wasn't on the team.

Any other reason we can't be as good as we were in 2009?

I was referring to each year individually, so Manny, Lowe and Martin were significant in 2008.

Manny had 2.5 WAR in limited action, you said it right there. Somehow Juan Pierre filled in adequately (I don't know what it was, but I think he was in the 2 range). That's in the 4-5 range right there, where does that come from?

As talented as Matt Kemp is, I don't think he'll ever repeat that 2009 season. I think he could definitely be a 4 WAR player.

You got a lot of career years in 2009, which is hard to repeat (same applies to my Giants), and you see what happens when a couple guys have off years, coupled with injuries and completely fall off the wagon (Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Broxton).

And then the other factor is that all the other teams in the West have gotten better. What did LA win, 95 games or somewhere around there? And they absolutely coasted through the first half, and ever since then haven't been as strong. The Rockies although had a worse record this year, absolutely underperformed more than any team in that division (I don't mean guys having bad years, but rather 3rd-order wins). That team is really, really good and I'm afraid they'll be that way for quite a few years. Although the Giants are more of an 85-90 true talent team, they still have a lot of upside. The Padres are a question mark, and the Dodgers are in that 80-85 territory from a quick glance.

Obviously that's competitive, but that's the question. Is it worth it to sacrifice the few years after 2012 or so? They have some great pieces that they could re-tool quite nicely IMO, and definitely be competitive in a few seasons. I honestly hope that they try and compete, I've seen those methods fail far too many times in the Sabean era, and I expect Colletti to have that same mindset.

sf-fanatic
10-21-2010, 04:04 AM
Giant fighting among Giant. :laugh2:

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 04:16 AM
:laugh:
Its only your opinion they need a 1B. They have actual holes to fill so no, I didn't leave out 1B. Funny how the SI comment that you responded to was about Lilly too and not Loney.
The only have a small window to win with the good core they have.

you are completely missing the point.

We are talking about a team that should be heading in a different direction then what this contract dictates.

Keeping Loney is fine, he is just one of the worst overall first basemen in the game.

Lilly might, at his very best, be worth his contract. And is more than likely not going to be worth it. Either way, the team should be focusing their limited financial resources on building from within, rather than putting 10% of their payroll into a 3rd or 4th starter in his mid 30's. It simply isn't smart baseball management.

sf-fanatic
10-21-2010, 04:19 AM
LOL what has happened to this thread? This has actually gotten pretty interesting, ill read it all tomorrow. From what I saw so far, Jeffy25 and G4L have a good point, its time for the dodgers to rebuild especially with the possible changes in management.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 04:21 AM
You got a lot of career years in 2009, which is hard to repeat (same applies to my Giants), and you see what happens when a couple guys have off years, coupled with injuries and completely fall off the wagon (Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Broxton).


you can say the same about the 2010 Reds ;)

RTL
10-21-2010, 04:38 AM
you are completely missing the point.

We are talking about a team that should be heading in a different direction then what this contract dictates.

Keeping Loney is fine, he is just one of the worst overall first basemen in the game.

Lilly might, at his very best, be worth his contract. And is more than likely not going to be worth it. Either way, the team should be focusing their limited financial resources on building from within, rather than putting 10% of their payroll into a 3rd or 4th starter in his mid 30's. It simply isn't smart baseball management.

I'm not missing the point. I am simply disagreeing with your point;) You see it one way, I see it the other. Like I said, talk to me in March when we have a REAL idea of what the Dodgers will look like for next year and beyond.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 10:30 AM
I'm not missing the point. I am simply disagreeing with your point;) You see it one way, I see it the other. Like I said, talk to me in March when we have a REAL idea of what the Dodgers will look like for next year and beyond.

we?

Now you are a Dodgers fan?

VRP723
10-21-2010, 10:42 AM
As talented as Matt Kemp is, I don't think he'll ever repeat that 2009 season. I think he could definitely be a 4 WAR player.

You got a lot of career years in 2009, which is hard to repeat (same applies to my Giants), and you see what happens when a couple guys have off years, coupled with injuries and completely fall off the wagon (Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Broxton).

It's really frustrating to argue this with you when you continue to make broad statements that make no sense.

If you don't think Matt Kemp can be a 5 WAR outfielder ever again you might be the only one.

As for guys having career years in 2009, you might be able to argue Broxton and Kemp, but other than that, like I said before, guys were WORSE in 2009 than their career averages, not better like you stated without evidence.

Martin was awful, Furcal was awful, Ethier was alright, when he gets moved to left I think all Dodger fans could tell you he'll regain a lot of his value.

As for the Dodgers "dying with Broxton", Kuo/Jansen can be better than Broxton ever was, the only difference being Kuo's not as much of a horse, but Broxton's main problem was the 4+ out saves, so that's not what we need out of Kuo.

Like I said, the Dodgers still have a good and competitive team, is it the best in the division? No, probably not, but are they capable of being a 88+ win team again if they make a few smart moves this offseason. Yes.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 10:44 AM
we?

Now you are a Dodgers fan?

Still haven't responded to my last comment directed towards you.

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 10:48 AM
Still haven't responded to my last comment directed towards you.

which one?

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 10:53 AM
No one's praising him, he's not very good, but OTHER TEAMS WANT HIM. I've said it 6 times, I've showed articles, what else can I do?

Why would you cut someone who has trade value.

And again, I don't want to hear "He probably can only get you blah blah blah" because you, along with myself, have no clue. All we know FOR SURE is that teams have interest in him. Seems like enough of a reason to keep him, right?

I am assuming this is the question, since you bumped it.

I personally wouldn't just cut him, I would offer him a one year deal, and desperately try to remain under 5 million, and openly look for an opportunity to trade him for a mid level minor leaguer. If the team comes out of the gate doing well, then consider retaining him, since any league average bat is at least that for the team.

As well, that is probably the third time I have stated that, I wouldn't just cut him, my joke was that Colletti will offer him a mutli-year deal to one of the worst first basemen in the game. It would be wise to move him, and get anything you can back for him, by 2012, the contract he will be up for in arb won't be pretty for his production.

VRP723
10-21-2010, 11:29 AM
BTW, VRP, I assume Loney will get non-tendered right?

Now you wouldn't cut him? Your first comment about Loney was in response to G4L's question, and you said this.


he should, as a part of the rebuilding, that is what they SHOULD do.

I bet they give him a two year deal though :facepalm:

Flip-flop much?

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 12:51 PM
Now you wouldn't cut him? Your first comment about Loney was in response to G4L's question, and you said this.



Flip-flop much?

What they should do, is plan a future without him.

Non-tendering him still isn't a bad idea, and if he expects anything more than 4.5-5 million, I would let him walk. I also would not have resigned Lilly, and I would be moving as many veterans as I could, including Ethier for a list of prospects or potential prospects.

Gary Reasons
10-21-2010, 12:58 PM
i'd take James Loney

Jeffy25
10-21-2010, 01:56 PM
i'd take James Loney

on the Mets with Ike Davis?

RTL
10-22-2010, 05:44 PM
we?

Now you are a Dodgers fan?

Me and you, my new best friend;)

ATL#22
10-22-2010, 06:44 PM
lol James Loney? :puke:

yojoe792
10-24-2010, 03:12 AM
I'm not getting why this thread is about James Loney...back to Ted Lilly please?

I guess I'm pretty satisfied with this signing...he hardly walks anybody and has a real nice WHIP. One of the more reliable left handed arms in the game. At 34 years old, I really would have liked to see a 2 year contract, but I guess the market for arms is slim, so we'll take what we can get.

If Bills can stay healthy and consistent, this is a nice 1-2-3 we've got going. Now if only we can score some runs...