THE WHAT?

there is this the perception that somehow the National League West is some remote wilderness somewhere between the Pacific Coast League and the Alaskan League. Oh, sure, Vicente Padilla and Brad Penny can jump off the Morgan Memorial trucks and throw gems, but it is a division predominated by the three California pitchers' parks that make it such a pitchers' division.
...
In games played outside their own division (versus teams from the NL East, Central and interleague play) the NL West this weekend was 24 games over .500, the NL Central five under, the NL East 24 under; in the American League, the West was 33 over .500, the East 28 over, the Central 37 under.
...
"What this division has is four teams with good major league players and very good minor league systems," Diamondbacks GM Josh Byrnes says, "and we all know that not only are the Padres playing everyone tough, but they will get the organization back in place because they have such competent people running things. The Dodgers obviously are very good. The Giants' pitching is intimidating. The Rockies are really good, both in terms of their everyday players and how well they pitch from top to bottom (yes, they lead the league in quality starts). How many people have noticed what Ubaldo Jimenez has done, or Max Scherzer, or realize how great Clayton Kershaw is about to become?"
...
The joke is that Dodgers GM Ned Colletti could be arrested for shoplifting, as in the last two seasons he has acquired Manny Ramirez, Casey Blake, George Sherrill, Jon Garland, Jim Thome, Doug Mientkiewicz, Ronnie Belliard and Vicente Padilla and paid them a combined total approximately the equal of the $2.7 million that the team saved during Manny Ramirez's suspension. San Francisco's Brian Sabean added Freddy Sanchez and Ryan Garko at little talent cost

Whaaa? I'm not sure I get Gammons' point here... and I don't agree that Sabean and Coletti have fleeced anybody.

5 months ago westbrook 52 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.

by westbrook on Sep 6, 2009 5:33 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs

Well hello there, Carlos. How’s that second league MVP in a row treating you?

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 6, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, eat it Colletti, our guy has two minor league MVPs. Neil Huntington’s guy was the Dodgers’ minor league player of the year in ‘05. That’s worked out pretty well for him.

Seriously, I really like the Santana trade, but I’m not going to start gloating until the guy puts up some numbers where they count.

by ClarkM on Sep 6, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t know steadily advancing catchers who hit for power, average and can draw walks from both sides of the plate weren’t worth getting excited about. I’ll go ahead and not get excited about prospects ever again and just assume that anytime we trade someone from our 25 man roster for a prospect , that we were wrong in every way possible. Thank you for opening my eyes.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 7, 2009 3:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think anyone is saying don’t get excited about Santana. I also don’t think anyone is saying the Indians didn’t do very well for themselves in the Blake trade.

But try, for a second, to put yourself in the shoes of a Dodgers fan. You gave up a single-A catcher for an every day major league 3B that contributed to a world series push. By the time Santana reaches the majors as an every day player, the Dodgers likely will have 3 playoff appearances and perhaps a world series.

They are playing a different game right now than us, so it is conceivable that we both “won” that trade.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 7, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If that Dodgers fan really connects the trade to three different seasons, then he’s misinformed. What they got for Santana was exactly two months of Casey Blake — no less, no more.

by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very true. But Carlos Santana wouldn’t have helped them in those other two years either. And that’s why they likely wouldn’t care. The only thing the could/should be upset about is that they didn’t get a little more for him.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 7, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only thing the could/should be upset about is that they didn’t get a little more for him.

That is kind of my point here. That is the essence of a trade.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 7, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But that should the source of great upset.

Of course a short-sighted or ignorant fan can ignore this right now, but just ask any Mariners fan how he feels about the Indians lineup, three years after they handed us two above-average everyday players in exchange for a case bad beer and a song. We’ve already gotten two productive seasons each out of those two guys, and we’ve got four or five more still to come out of each. It’s likely that two years from now, Carlos Santana will look the same to Dodgers fans.

by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Blake helps them win a WS and Santana wins 3 MVPs and we don’t get to the Big Dance, I’d still rather be the Dodgers.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Sep 8, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a difference between helping and merely being there.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And why Blake is there this year. Free Agency, not the trade. Because had the Dodger’s not added the year to his contract, he’d be in Minnesota.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 8, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which is more proof that in these situations, the trade does not help the team re-acquire the player. If anything, the trade helps the player get a better offer from that team, which of course he then takes.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure Mariners fans really enjoy this.

I'm not really into Song of Hiawatha.

by sarcasmdave on Sep 8, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL call me when he hits better than .300 in the minors, shoulda kept Blake LOL.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 6, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of a bookend LOL tag for clecomments.

Nice comma, also.

by Logodaedalus on Sep 6, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Jim Thome trade was pretty good I thought.

by Joe. on Sep 6, 2009 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The D’Backs are down 13-3 on 3 Chris Young solo homers

This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.

by westbrook on Sep 6, 2009 6:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For all Colletti’s “thievery”, I still doubt it will end in a World Series victory.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 6, 2009 7:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and?

he’s put together a great team (with some significant help from the previous regime, of course—i believe depodesta drafted kemp, loney, billingsley, broxton, and a lot of their other young talent).

success in the playoffs has more to do with luck than anything else. whether or not colletti wins the WS this year really shouldn’t impact how we evaluate the job he’s done as general manager.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Sep 6, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will if it doesn’t net him the World Series and his aging acquisitions prove less valuable by the day, while he looks at a depleted farm system, no?

But see, Colletti is the GM of a team with money. If these don’t work out, he just buys himself new ones. These guys are never ever treated as harshly for their mistakes as someone like Shapiro is.

Here Lies the Victor Martinez Era:
Sept. 10, 2002 - July 31, 2009

by USSChoo on Sep 7, 2009 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aside from the merits of the Colletti and Sabean trades, I enjoyed the column.

Gammons is attempting to point out the flaws in the perception of the NL West being a joke. The NL is still the weaker of the two, but I’m puzzled as to why folks would single out this division (and there is an awful lot of that around here).

by ClarkM on Sep 6, 2009 8:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Right. The NL at a whole is still significantly weaker than the AL, but the West isn’t any worse than the two other divisions in the league.

by Buckeye Brad on Sep 6, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know we’ve got no reason to be smug. Tha AL Central is one of the weakest divisions in all of baseball – even if it is in the AL.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Sep 7, 2009 3:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d say it’s easily in the bottom six.

Everybody should get ice cream every day.

by junkballer on Sep 7, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, well, when the team that’s gonna represent us in the play-offs is the Tigers, you know we’re bad.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Sep 7, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As my grandpa used to say, we’re in the upper half of the lower third.

by Jay on Sep 7, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still have friends who don’t get the Blake deal. They think we gave away the second-coming for a cup of warm spit. Seriously.

I don’t talk baseball with them much anymore.

I just wanted to believe.

by mjmarble on Sep 6, 2009 9:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I should add they think Blake is gritty and always seemed to get a hit when it counted. How do you begin to argue against such logic?

I just wanted to believe.

by mjmarble on Sep 6, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can’t just tell them, we got six years with the next Victor Martinez, cheap? That’s not plain enough?

by Jay on Sep 6, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

always seemed to get a hit when it counted

Oh come on, no one thought that.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 7, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes how quickly we forget…Casey Blake, he of the .702 career OPS with RISP.

by hans on Sep 7, 2009 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t have thought it was that high. Probably in out-of-contention games, the jerk.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, he wasn’t A-Rod.

by fwembt on Sep 8, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skinner stops Lofton. First and third. Casey grounds into a double play.

by odradek on Sep 7, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

… on the FIRST PITCH he sees, too.

by JulioBernazard on Sep 8, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some people thought that because he was the poster child for why RBI are an idiot stat in the first part of 2008. As of May 11, 2008, he led the team in RBI because 64% of his hits came with a RISP. He was hitting .236 overall, but .444 with RISP. For the year, he had a .960 OPS with RISP and an .808 OPS overall. People’s memories are short.

In general, though, I think his fans praised his “clubhouse presence” and “consistency” more than anything else.

by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i, personally, liked his versatility. i just wished they had used it from game to game instead of from year to year.

by Brick. on Sep 8, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But prior to 2008, he had a horrendous track record with RISP.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But people are stupid, and their memories are short.

by FredOx on Sep 8, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess they just remember his RISP stats for the four months (or less) leading up to the moment he was traded.

Those numbers were really atrocious before that point, for years.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember reading somewhere, on BPro or someplace, that there’s no such thing as clutch, but there’s anecdotal evidence for “anti-clutch.”

by Voltaire on Sep 8, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s attractive logic to it. While it would seem impossible to raise your talent level in big situations—and if you can, what kind of jackass are you for not playing that way for every AB?—it seems perfectly reasonable that some players might psyche themselves out, swing too hard, get too tense, etc.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 8, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bill James has the right take on “clutch.”

Clutch may or may not exist in baseball, but there is too much noise in the data to identify it statistically.

It may be that anti-clutch can be identified statistically, but I’m not sure how that could be. I guess the idea would be that it can affect median performance so severely as to be identifiable as a trend, whereas being clutch has a more subtle effect that never can quite overcome the noise.

Certainly there is no statistical evidence that clutch doesn’t exist.

Statboys in general have a problem with calling everything that can’t be spotted in the numbers “luck.” Just because we haven’t been able to identify an effect statistically doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Things that appear to be “luck” in the numbers should really be called “randomness and other effects not yet isolated.”

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In terms of median performance with RISP and two outs, Casey was (prior to 2008) one of the worst in the majors.

by odradek on Sep 8, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clutch post.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 8, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Maybe you are just making a general comment. But I don’t think this is what Gammons is arguing. He is saying the deal was so great for the Dodgers in the context of their recent slew of veteran additions, contributing in to a very very good team, and they aren’t really paying much for them in terms of money. He’s given up prospects, and Santana is a golden one, but he hasn’t expanded payroll while improving a quarter of their active roster in less than 2 years.

by Ryan Kelsey on Sep 6, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was actually making a general commentary about the value that is Casey Blake, not generally about Gammons. I understand where he’s going with this article – I was just kinda focusing on that one specific part. Not saying he doesn’t have value, of course – but it’s not the end all be all. I don’t think anyone in these parts seriously thinks we didn’t (or won’t) come out for the better in this deal in the long run.

I just wanted to believe.

by mjmarble on Sep 6, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Congrats, Colletti, you have the financial wherewithal to take on contracts that half the league cannot.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 6, 2009 10:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually, he hasn’t taken on those contracts, other than Manny’s new contract. He has given up extra minor league talent to make up for the lack of payroll. I only wish we’d been in a position to deal even more with him.

by Jay on Sep 6, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs