Saturday Rockpile: NL West shakin' up

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 9:33 AM MST in Rockpile Comment 48 comments

I'm not sure how the departure of Jeff Moorad from the Diamondbacks to (he hopes) the Padres will affect the rest of the division. D-backs fans tended to see Moorad as a liability for their club and put responsibility for the worst of the Snakes' moves over the last three seasons (the Eric Byrnes extension, for instance) at his feet rather than those of GM-for-life Josh Byrnes or new CEO Derrick Hall. Now that the fall guy has left, will the Snakes turn into the smartly run Red Sox-lite type of organization their fans seek, or will J. Byrnes and Hall be exposed as well meaning, but altogether average baseball execs? As a fan of a rival, I'm obviously hoping for the latter (or worse, actually) but it should be an interesting story to watch develop.

************

One of my tropes this winter has been that the Dodgers have been acting like a team facing a budget shortfall, from the comments by ownership and their early lowball stance on Manny Ramirez, to the back-loaded Rafael Furcal contract, to not being anywhere to be found when the best pitchers on the market were getting snapped up despite having a glaring hole in their starting rotation. Now with Andruw Jones' contract being re-worked to save the Dodgers $12 million this season, we have evidence that goes beyond the circumstantial. There's a lot about this situation that fascinates me. Both the Dodgers and Scott Boras have to claim that the Jones renegotiation and Manny Ramirez situations are separate, as otherwise they set themselves up for conflict of interest complaints by the players union or other concerned parties (the rest of the division, for instance) even though it's pretty clear the two situations are inter-related.

It does look at this point that the Dodgers will be able to proceed in their pursuit of Ramirez as the next puzzle piece to reconstructing last season's magic. Signing Ramirez should give them claim to the division's strongest looking lineup, but in the same way that their talented looking rotation doesn't hold up to a projected innings pitched test, this lineup when you project out plate appearances looks somewhat fragile and Loretta/Pierre/Young as primary bench options doesn't really impress me. I'm really wondering what kind of season Russell Martin is in for after being used so extensively in 2008. DeWitt at second base seems somewhat equivalent to McDonald in the rotation for them, in that Dodger fans' expectations for the rookie don't seem to always jive with realistic projections. Blake could become a downright hole at third if his power starts to fade. Ramirez himself can be an impact player, clearly he was in 2008, but the fact that no team except for the Dodgers really sees him as an upgrade worth actively pursuing should be a signal that his best years are also behind him. The Dodgers will likely benefit from this signing in 2009, but in subsequent seasons? Not so much, it's clearly a win now, pay later move.

0 recs | Comment 48 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

so

are you saying Manny will stop hitting after 2009?? I seriously doubt that.
Martin will be fine,
McDonald will be good as the Rockies 3rd starter.
I imagine you must have the same questions about the new LFer and CFer in Colorado, and if Stewart will hit like he did in the 2nd half last year for the whole season. Or, how your new closer will handle pitching in Colorado? Or if Tulo will be the 2007 Tulo or something less than that.Or, if Helton will get more than 350 ABs?

raygu

by raygu on Jan 3, 2009 10:50 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Stop hitting? No. Stop fielding?

Probably. What sort of value do you think you’re going to be getting from him in 2010 and 2011?

McDonald will be good as the Rockies 3rd starter.

Thank you for making my point about Dodger fans overhyping McDonald for me. What sort of evidence is there that he will be so good? The more reliable pitcher projections for rookies, ZiPS (5.46 ERA) and CHONE (4.86) project him to be fifth starter level or worse. Every scouting report I’ve read on him talks about how his ceiling (what he could be at his peak) is the middle of the rotation, and you see him giving that kind of performance his first major league season. Why are you right and the scouts wrong? The numbers don’t say he’ll be a big plus for the rotation in 2009, the scouts don’t say it, but Dodger fans do, and this is why I’m saying he’s being overhyped.

And yes, btw, I do have the same questions about the Rockies lineup, but that’s sort of the point. Adding Manny doesn’t eliminate all the flaws in the Dodgers lineup, just the big one. It goes a long way to helping the team, but there are still enough questions, particularly in the rotation, to not see them as more than marginal favorites for 2009 if they sign him. The Dodgers getting Ramirez hurts, but is hardly a death blow to the D-backs, Rockies, or Giants.

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 11:19 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

McDonald will be the 5th starter if he's n the rotation, so no matter what Dodger fans think, he will be fine.

And when has Manny ever been a good fielder? I agree this is no death blow to the other teams in the NL West, but who said it was? No one is claiming the Dodgers are going to run away with it so I don’t see the point of your arguement. Every team has questions going into the season, certainly the Rockies are filled with them.

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 3, 2009 4:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

You guys drive me crazy sometimes... one Dodger fan comes in and argues one thing

And then when I speak to his arguments, and his arguments only, you pick apart my statements as if I’m unaware about how they apply to the Rockies as well. That’s exactly my point. No team is far enough ahead of the others here to claim any sort of safe margin, no team is far enough behind that fans of the others can say that they are out of it, and the same will be true even if the Dodgers or Giants sign Manny.

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 7:15 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

No team is far enough behind...

Except the Padres. Unless they got sent to AAA when I wasn’t looking.

by Azreous on Jan 6, 2009 11:16 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I thought that part of the sentence was universally understood,

Usually it’s Padres fans that complain about me excluding them in the conversation, though.

by Rox Girl on Jan 6, 2009 11:25 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

HAHA!!

EVERYONE POINT AT THE PADRES AND LAUGH!!!

Ceci n'est pas une signature.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 6, 2009 12:31 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

mcd

the proj. you give are exactly my point aboit the Rockies rotation

raygu

by raygu on Jan 3, 2009 3:49 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

OH HO

THE ROCKIES #3 WILL HAVE A 5.50 ERA BECAUS PITCHING IZ LOUSY IN CORS FIELD

That’s such a good point. You’re so clever.

Bill James (4.56) and Marcel (4.41) both project Francis to be better than McDonald. It’s not stellar, but he’s due for a rebound after a nagging-injury/overcompensating 2008.

Are you just trolling, honestly? If you’re gonna come in acting like the Amazing Dodgers Rotation™ has better pitchers on the back end than the Rockies have on the front, back it up with more than just weak anecdotal conjecture. Know your enemy.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Jan 3, 2009 5:32 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

James

also projects Spilborgh to hit just 9 HR…if my memory serves me correctly. are you buying that? I am not.
My point is the Rockies rotation has the same questions as the Dodgers. McD could get hit around to a 5+ era….then again, did anyone project Ubaldo to pitch so well last year? everyone was ALL over Franklin Morales as the next Rockies ace after his performance in the playoffs. Well, McD also performed well out of the bullpen in the playoffs. Frankly, I would prefer to see him as the long man out of the pen.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 3, 2009 5:43 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I don't remember everyone being all over Frankie-Mo like you say

But we were hopeful. Rockies fans were just as hopeful about Jimenez, however, and the Marcel projections were closer than most for him.

I agree that McDonald could be a big plus out of the pen, but your original point was that he’d be better as a starter than the Rockies #3 starter in 2009. That’s simply not true, and there’s a decent chance that he wouldn’t be as good as our #5 (Jorge De La Rosa).

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 7:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

and mlb.com's Gurnick

agrees with me:

"All that could change by Opening Day, but if the season started now, it would be with Martin catching, Furcal and Blake on the left side of the infield, Loney and Blake DeWitt on the right side of the infield, Kemp and Ethier in the outfield, Chad Billingsley and Kershaw in the rotation and Jonathan Broxton, Hong-Chih Kuo, Cory Wade, James McDonald and Scott Elbert in the bullpen. "

raygu

by raygu on Jan 3, 2009 5:52 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Holes

of course the Dodgers have some holes (as pointed out by others), but so do all the other teams in the division, in fact they probably have more holes/bad players. Ramirez will be a 2-3 win improvement over Pierre in LF depending on which defensive projections for him you choose to use. McDonald will likely be in the mix for the 5th starter spot, with a likely outcome of him pitching out of the bullpen, mixed with some starts here and there. The Dodgers will likely add another starter or two via free agency. They still have McDonald/Stults/Schmidt/Guo for depth. Better depth than most teams have. If Blake does this, if Dewitt does this, if Manny does this, if, if, if, if…. I have the Dodgers sitting just under 80 wins currently, without adding in Manny, or any free agent starters or relievers they may add, nor subtracting Andruw Jones out. Without sprinkling too much pixie dust, I think they can easily build an 85 win team on paper. Probably right up there with Az again, with the Giants closing the gap a little.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 3, 2009 7:01 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Very well said

You articulated my point better. All of these “if” games with the Dodgers make little sense to me, no one’s saying they’re the Red Sox. They’ll probably be the best team in the division SLIGHTLY on paper but there’s a decent chance any of the other teams besides the Padres could win the division. But most of these “reasons” for the Dodgers downfall are highly speculative and are holding the Dodgers to unfair standards. Who is upset that McDonald will compete for the 5th starter spot or that Dewitt is unproven? And where are the similiar cries for Ian Stewart and Greg Smith?

by Brendan Scolari on Jan 3, 2009 7:11 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

You know your starting depth is actually Claudio Vargas, right?

Which is not better depth than at least one team in the division, I might add. And which free agent starter are your projections referring to that gives you 177 IP of a 4.33 FIP, exactly? Which relievers are you signing, and you realize that your IP allotments for the relievers don’t really jive with the way Torre uses his closer and set-up man (around 50 IP each) right? And I could see why you’d want to believe that Billingsley will throw over 200 again this season as effectively as he pitched last year (ZiPS I know projected him about the same) but most neutral observers would be skeptical of that. Probably not as skeptical as a non-neutral like myself, but at any rate, thanks again for the disregard to the Rockies, Xei.

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 7:45 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I made this comment earlier

But what everyone is overlooking is Billingsley’s spiral fracture of his fibula, which can take a LONG time to heal completely. I don’t imagine projections out there have taken this into consideration (I could be mistaken)

by Hizilla on Jan 3, 2009 8:37 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Disregard

The #4 and #5 starters are place-holders for now. There’s a handful of free agent pitchers that could provide 1.5 WAR. Or a handful of pairs that could provide more than 1.0 WAR that I currently have in those place-holders. If the Dodgers don’t sign any free agent pitchers (or trade) then yeah they will likely be in trouble starting pitcher wise. The WAR chart is a dynamic document that gets filled in as moves are made. The Dodgers currently haven’t named their closer, so those IPs will get adjusted closer to spring training. As for Billingsley, he threw 201 IPs last year, so a prediction of 204 is not out of the realm, given his broken leg mends as expected. If you park adjust his stats from 2008 he had a WAR of 3.9 and I have him at 4.06 for 2009, so you will need to nitpick elsewhere.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 3, 2009 8:48 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The 201 IP is precisely what make him sketchy to repeat,

It’s not only 201 IP, but also a few more in the playoffs, making him a prime candidate for a Verducci effect hangover. Jeff Francis, after pitching 215.1 during the season plus more through the playoffs in 2007 is an extreme example of what frequently happens to young pitchers when they’ve been overextended well beyond their career highs in innings in a season. Before I get called out for supposed hypocrisy on this, let me say up front that I think Ubaldo Jimenez is also in this category, I’m actually expecting both U-Ball and Billz to come in around 175 to 180 IP this year.

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 9:12 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Justin Verlander

What?

by Hizilla on Jan 3, 2009 10:34 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that's the other way it could go...

Same # of innings, but a considerable drop-off in performance level. Francis got hit by both the dramatic reduction in innings pitched and the drop-off in performance. I’m obviously hopeful U-ball will be one of the exceptions, as I’m sure Dodger fans are hopeful Billingsley will be (although with the broken leg, it looks like they’re already looking a little dubious in that regard) but I’m not counting on it.

by Rox Girl on Jan 4, 2009 6:28 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

ZIPS

can soneone tell me what ZIPS projected for Billingsley in 2008? curious if they were even close to his final numbers. I would love to see what ZIPS has for Kershaw in 09. Will have to check it out.
re: vargas-do pitchers and catchers report next week?? just checking, otherwise alot of teams would be missing some pieces.
Re: Franklin Morales….oh he was hyped last year…by the best of Klaw, Callis, etc. I think he was on the cover of Baseball America’s prospect book.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 3, 2009 8:38 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Dodgers zips link

Dodgers ZIPS

by Xeifrank on Jan 3, 2009 8:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

K-Law didn't like him...

This I know for sure, as I got into a sort of discussion about him (he ended up being right, me being wrong).

by Rox Girl on Jan 3, 2009 9:04 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

my bad

I do remember alot of folks asking about him. Maybe it was more in the ESPN fantasy chats…my bad…even still, he was hyped.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 4, 2009 8:23 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Oh don't get me wrong, he certainly was hyped...

And our experience with that disappointment from our young pitching is part of what makes me particularly wary of the Dodgers situation heading into 2009. They seem, like the Rockies after 2007, to be relying too heavily on young pitchers, most a few seasons away from peaking, for next season.

by Rox Girl on Jan 4, 2009 10:14 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

but I think Ned and company are ready to give the young guys plenty of opportunity to fail/succeed. Something Gammons wrote about yesterday….we will see more young players in 2009….the new trend is to follow what the Rockies, Dbacks did in 2007 and Rays did in 2008….let the young guys play.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 4, 2009 10:32 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Failed premise

The Rays had an unprecedented collection of elite talent – much of which was acquired with premium draft picks that any successful organization won’t have access to.

Both the Diamondbacks and the Rockies essentially lucked into the playoffs in 2007 (the Dbacks with a horrible scoring differential and horrible offense and the Rockies with an unprecedented hot-streak and a logic defying play-in game) and 2008 showed that neither team had the talent, depth or maturity to repeat.

If the Dodgers are following a similar plan they are likely to be similarly disappointed. The weak competition in the NL West is the only thing that might save them.

by MADness on Jan 4, 2009 12:30 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Both the Diamondbacks and the Rockies essentially lucked into the playoffs in 2007 (the Dbacks with a horrible scoring differential and horrible offense and the Rockies with an unprecedented hot-streak and a logic defying play-in game) and 2008 showed that neither team had the talent, depth or maturity to repeat.

Yes, both teams “lucked” into the playoffs with enough luck to lead the NL in wins AND both sweep their first round adversaries, both coming out of the only division in MLB in 2007 to sport 4 teams over .500.

The Dbacks only finished 2 games behind the Dodgers in ’08, and only then because the Dodgers made the Mandy trade.

There’s no such thing as “luck”.

Ceci n'est pas une signature.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 5, 2009 10:27 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Impressive year for the West

The season for both Arizona and Rockies were impressive when you consider the unbalanced schedule and how many wins each division had. It adds up to a lot of wins against quality opponents Here’s a breakdown of the average number of wins a team had in each division in 2007:

NL………………………….AL
West 84.4 ……………West 83.25
Central 76.5……….Central 80.8
East 81………………..East 81.6

Keepin' warm by the hot stove season.

by Charlie77 on Jan 6, 2009 11:20 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

time will tell

but they do have the talent to repeat as division winners with the core of Martin, Loney, Kemp,Ethier, Billz, Broxton, Kuo and Dewitt.
what Ned is doing with payroll leaves him the flexibiliy to take on some salary come June July timeframe. As he stated last year, and again this year, the team on the field in April may not be the same team you see in July, which may not be the team you see in September. food for thought.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 4, 2009 2:13 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

what you are not considering

with the Dodgers core is for any of them to improve on their 2008 performance. Kemp has the power to hit 30 HRs, and Loney and Ethier have yet to reach their power potential. Dewitt has yet to play a full season in the majors but has a good bat for a 2bman. I can see him going 15-65 in 2009.
A healthy Furcal has to add a few more wins, and adding Manny will do the same. There will be no easy outs in the LA lineup if they sign Manny, and they should score more runs in 2009.
It remains to be seen who they will sign to replace Lowe. A name I forgot about was Ramon Troncoso who is currently starting in either the Venezuelan or Dominican winter league. 61% of his batted balls were groundballs, and he had a 2.99 FIP last year.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 4, 2009 3:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Drinking the Kool-Aid

Isn’t projecting some sort of best-case scenario for pretty much the entire roster (as well as remaining unsigned free agents and potential mid-season trades) just a tiny bit unrealistic?

by MADness on Jan 4, 2009 4:20 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

best case??

which ones?? Kemp isn’t capable of hitting 30 bombs? seriously? or are you taking the qualudes?
help me out here.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 4, 2009 9:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I admire the fanatacism, but...

Those aren’t just best case scenarios, they were fantasy case scenarios. Also it’s spelled quaaludes, with two a’s.

Loney’s slugging percentage has dropped each of the last three years (.559, .538, .434), he also hit fewer HR’s in ‘08 (13) than ’07 (15) with twice as many AB’s.

Kemp doubled his AB’s in ‘08 and nearly doubled his HR’s (10, 18), however he nearly tripled his strikeouts (66, 153). To hit 30 HR’s Kemp would have to nearly double his deep flies while lowering his K’s.

So yeah, I think those scenarios are highly unlikely.

Keepin' warm by the hot stove season.

by Charlie77 on Jan 4, 2009 9:57 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The no easy outs statement is also a reach,

The majority of projections have DeWitt coming around a .310 OBP for 2009, and Casey Blake could likewise dip below .320 as he seems to be seeing his skills erode. Add in that a quarter of the seasons of Furcal and Ramirez (the two have averaged a combined 74 games lost a season the last three years) would see them replaced by Hu and Pierre, and the Dodger lineup’s mortality becomes more evident.

by Rox Girl on Jan 5, 2009 5:36 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

compared to 2008

this lineup is much better.
I laugh at the mortality comment….keep’em coming.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 5, 2009 9:49 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

What, the Dodgers are invincible?

Kemp and Ethier and Loney are all very good, with Ethier quietly being the best of the 3. That said, our lineup stacks up with yours very favorably, excepting a reappearance of ramirez.

Spilborghs and Ethier are eerily similar, both being corner OFs who CAN play CF but probably shouldn’t, both have wOBA’s just a shade above .360 career, .380 for the past season (Spilborghs with like a .002 edge).

Hawpe is better at the plate than Kemp. Just a fact. Kemp is impatient, and while both strike out far too much, Hawpe takes walks along with said strikeouts. Defensively, anyone trumps Hawpe, so I’ll call the two a wash, esp if Kemp develops further in the upcoming season.

Casey Blake and Ian Stewart actually wOBA’d the same last season, but the thing is they’re waving to each other on opposite escalators. Blake’s on the decline, Stewart’s on the rise.

If Furcal even touches what he started to do last season, SS goes to the Dodgers. Not by miles, but Furcal can do things Tulo hasn’t really gotten to yet. Again, IF.

DeWitt has a better eye at 2B, but Barmes has a better bat. They both provide a similar win share, but Barmes has the better wOBA.

Chris Iannetta’s 2008 was good at levels Russell Martin hasn’t even seen yet. If Iannetta repeats in 09 as the fulltime starter, and even if Martin has a good rebound year, it’s still Iannetta as the favorite.

I really think you’re overestimating the Dodgers.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Jan 5, 2009 12:30 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

DeWitt's defense at second is pretty bad, BTW

According to most scouting reports I’ve read he should really be sticking at corners right now, the Rockies will have a bigger advantage there than you’re seeing given that their bats are likely to be similar in 2009. Going forward, DeWitt’s bat will improve, but if his defense doesn’t, it might not mean much.

by Rox Girl on Jan 5, 2009 1:48 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Glad to have that reinforced

Fangraphs’ version of UZR said he was very good at 3B and below average by like 2 runs at 2B. Difference being that Barmes kind of is what he is and DeWitt is a “prospect” still and more likely for development.

That said I laugh at ur thougtful commentary n gud evaluation of playrz keep m comin

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Jan 5, 2009 1:53 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Iannetta

although I am a fan of his, I don’t quite get the statement:

“Chris Iannetta’s 2008 was good at levels Russell Martin hasn’t even seen yet. If Iannetta repeats in 09 as the fulltime starter, and even if Martin has a good rebound year, it’s still Iannetta as the favorite.”

Please do tell what you are talking about. According to THT, they had similar GPAs which adjusts OPS for park factors.
Dewitt had a .256 GPA and Barmes-.240.
Until Stewart has more than a few hundred ABs, I wouldn’t give 3b to him just yet.
Same for Spilborgh-I do like him though.
Kemp=5 too player, Hawpe-1?? I admit Hawpe does walk more, and has more power….NOW….that should change.
I don’;t think I am overestimating the Dodgers lineup.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 5, 2009 2:18 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Iannetta

His IsoD and IsoP are better than Martin’s. Also his OBP, SLG, OPS. His wOBA is 20 points higher than Martin’s has been ever, nonetheless last season.

Martin’s gonna have another good year. Iannetta’s gonna have a better one.

Can anyone suggest why Martin’s power numbers dropped in 2008? Was he secretly injured or something?

Also using something anecdotal like “5 TOOL PLAYER” isn’t really a good way to evaluate talent. Kemp is raw. Why do you think he’ll just magically start walking more? His Minor league IsoD is right on line with his major league IsoD, right around .040-.050.

Hawpe hits for better power has a better OBP than Kemp. Hawpe’s PARK ADJUSTED OPS+ the past 3 seasons are 123, 129, 120, with a line of like .290/.380/.515 (I’m ballparking this one) over the 3 years.

Kemp has the potential to hit for higher average, but he’s trying to boost his power swing by swinging for the fences each AB, as evidenced by his K rate jumping and such. He OPS+ 108 last season, and 125 the season before. The year he OPS+’d 125 he batted .342/.373/.521 which is very good, with a BABIP of .417. You can’t sit back and tell me that’s sustainable. And again, he isn’t walking nearly as much as he needs to get that OBP up into lethal ranges regularly.

Bill James is calling for Kemp to bat .311/.360/.496, wOBA of .375, next season, while Marcel sees it as .300/.349/.475, wOBA .354.

James calls Hawpe at .281/.374/.500, wOBA of 380; Marcel at .281/.373/.496, wOBA of .372. Not sure why the drop in AVG/OBP, but either way, good power, good discipline.

And like I said, Kemp has the better glove in RF. I call it a wash. If they were both DHs, I give it to Hawpe every day.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Martin

his drop in power are due to two factors:
1-he plays way too much
2-he is known to love the night life, which may or may not change, but Torre and mgmt are addressing it.
Kemp-doesn’t swing for the fences every AB…..most of his HRs go to CF or Right CF….so he isn’t pulling the ball.
Agreed on his 2007 season stats…but I think saying he won;t ever hit 30 hrs is crazy.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 5, 2009 3:40 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Kemp

also struck out a lot less the second half. I feel like Hawpe may have the better OBP this coming season but Kemp is looking pretty solid and if he improves his walks, he’ll be close enough offensively to Hawpe that I think his defense will surpass Hawpe.

by Resolution on Jan 5, 2009 6:35 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Kemp/Loney

so you’re saying that based on 2-3 yrs worth of stats that neither will hit more than 18 ~~Kemp) or 15~~(Loney) homers in a season-ever??

raygu

by raygu on Jan 5, 2009 10:02 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Kemp

hit flyballs on only 32% of his batted balls in 2008, with 13% resulting in a HR. Should he maintain the 32% flyball rate, he would have to increase his HR/OF to 20% to reach 29-30 HR in 2009. So he would need to increase his HR/OF by 50% (from .13 to .20). I think that is something a 23 yr old can attain.

raygu

by raygu on Jan 5, 2009 10:57 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Semantics

There is a significant difference between what the young players in question (Kemp, Stewart, Kershaw, Morales, etc.) can potentially do and what they are likely to do NEXT year.

That difference accounts for most of the discrepency between the varying projections of the Dodgers that we have been arguing about.

Kemp may (or may not) learn plate discipline and grow into his considerable skills but the odds of him coming anywhere close to his ceiling next year are extremely small. Being 23 increases his chances of eventually reaching his ceiling but it also decreases the chances of that breakthrough being in the very near future.

by MADness on Jan 5, 2009 3:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Boras gossip..

After moving to San Diego, I have heard a lot of Dodger fan complaints about the contracts Scott Boras has negotiated for the men in blue; specifically Kevin Brown and Dreifert. It sounds like his negotiations may have finally come back to bite one of his own reps; Andrew Jones, in the buttocks (although Jones performance has not helped either). It will be interesting to see how the ManRam saga wears out. Would his signing improve the Giants roster? After signing Renteria and Randy they can’t be any worse than last year. Hopefully the Giants also invest in Ben Gay and AARP insurance with all those middle-age signings.

Keepin' warm by the hot stove season.

by Charlie77 on Jan 4, 2009 7:44 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Lousy track record.

I’m not sure how the departure of Jeff Moorad from the Diamondbacks to (he hopes) the Padres will affect the rest of the division. D-backs fans tended to see Moorad as a liability for their club and put responsibility for the worst of the Snakes’ moves over the last three seasons (the Eric Byrnes extension, for instance) at his feet rather than those of GM-for-life Josh Byrnes or new CEO Derrick Hall. Now that the fall guy has left, will the Snakes turn into the smartly run Red Sox-lite type of organization their fans seek, or will J. Byrnes and Hall be exposed as well meaning, but altogether average baseball execs? As a fan of a rival, I’m obviously hoping for the latter (or worse, actually) but it should be an interesting story to watch develop.

Hmmmm…. let’s see. Among other things, Moorad signed ::BLARGH:: Russ Ortiz and steroid user Troy Glaus; signed the aging Shawn Green to an extension (delaying the development of several young up-and-coming OFs) to “excite” the fans (it should also be noted that Green was his former client when he was a sports agent); and most importantly, RE-SIGNED ERIC BYRNES.

Now, some overanxious fans would point the finger at Moorad for the Dbacks having traded away Carlos Quentin as well; as far as I can tell, that move was made by Josh Byrnes. But, it’s a fact that it was Moorad who single-handedly re-signed Byrnes, and J.Byrnes actually had an impromptu one-on-one discussion late in the 2007 season with one of our ‘pit regulars as to why he wasn’t going to re-sign E.Byrnes. (Before the extension)

Moorad has a record of signing big-time exciting free agents to titillate the fans, while Josh Byrnes has more of a record of signing no-name FAs or players coming off a down year. Moorad likes to buy high, Byrnes likes to buy low, with somewhat mixed success but largely high marks given the budget he’s working with. That’s the biggest difference right there. Byrnes also deserves credit for our many recent successful trades and some of our successful draft picks. As a Redskins fan, in many ways, Jeff Moorad reminds me of Dan Snyder — he’s impatient and not necessarily afraid to spend money to help the team, but he doesn’t really have any idea WHAT helps the team.

Moorad leaving is addition by subtraction, or subtraction by addition for the Padres…. ;-) — and Derrick Hall hasn’t really been much more than a spokesman while president. He’s worked on the operations side rather than the baseball side. I hope that’ll continue.

Ceci n'est pas une signature.

by DbacksSkins on Jan 5, 2009 10:56 PM MST reply actions 0 recs