Jon Weisman On Frank McCourt

This is a must read if you care about the Dodgers.

I'll edit some thoughts in soon.

Update 1: On the decision to not offer Randy Wolf and Orlando Hudson arbitration:

"I think that the downside wouldn't have been horrible," McCourt said, "because he's a very good pitcher, and he pitched very well for us and he was a model citizen. From the area, really classy young man and so forth. But the judgment was made, and again, judgments are judgments. They're not perfect. No one has a crystal ball.

"I think anybody can pick one or two examples and jump to a conclusion," McCourt said. "Their opinion is valid -- I respect their opinion -- but it doesn't mean that their conclusion is right. There are 101 decisions that get made and judgments that get made every day."

Basically a bunch of rhetoric about making lots of decisions and saying fans don't know what goes on behind the scenes and stuff. That's all well and good, but beating around the bush basically makes me think he is covering for a mistake.

Jon makes a great point about Frank's "investment" in the development of the team:

It's too difficult to say whether McCourt is right about this, because it's too difficult to measure the importance of what he's extolling. Will Camelback Ranch turn borderline major-leaguers into legitimate ones? If it's true, then the McCourt Dodgers have hit a home run in development, no matter how many Dodgers fans realize it.

But how would anyone know? After all, this is a team that already has a 17th-round draft pick from hockey country, Russell Martin, and a sixth-round pick who specialized in basketball, Matt Kemp, who have each won a Silver Slugger and Gold Glove in the same year. Both were drafted before the McCourts bought the team and developed long before Camelback was even imagined. Cinderella stories are part of the game. Teams have always depended on those.

I guess these two paragraphs lead directly into the next section.

Update 2: Jon shares some insights on the Carlos Santana trade:

If there was a moment that really seemed to call into question the Dodgers' ability to commit to prospects, it was when the team traded Carlos Santana and Jonathan Meloan in mid-2008 for a three-month test run of Casey Blake. (Blake re-signed with the Dodgers as a free agent after the 2008 season.) It was widely reported, to the point that almost no doubt remained, that the Dodgers included Santana, a catcher who was having an explosive year in A ball, so that they wouldn't have to pay approximately $2 million in Blake's remaining '08 salary.

McCourt said in the interview that he had "no idea" about that aspect of the trade, that this was general manager Ned Colletti's territory. This is an example of the plausible deniability McCourt periodically exercises that seems not quite so plausible, given the level of detail with which he'll talk about other aspects of the Dodgers. Subsequent to the interview, neither Colletti nor anyone else with the Dodgers would comment about this on the record.

However, a source within the Dodgers organization insisted that the following was true: The Indians were not going to trade Blake to the Dodgers unless they got Santana in the deal. His inclusion had nothing to do with money.

Nothing to do with money? Uh...then this is even worse than I thought.

Even if the original reports about the trade were true and the Dodgers did it to save $2 million, it's not like they haven't spent that $2 million and more elsewhere since then, and rather recklessly at times to boot (Guillermo Mota fits this bill rather perfectly). On the other hand, if my source is correct and the Dodgers simply believed Santana and Meloan for Blake was a smart move, was the team right to do it? It was debatable then, is debatable now even after Blake's presence on two division-winning Dodger teams, and will continue to be debatable for some time to come.

It's not really debatable for me.

I understand that there's still a very real possibility that Santana and Meloan could be complete busts. However, even if that happens, I still don't like the trade, simply because giving up premium talent for three months of an average veteran isn't exactly the type of thing I believe any organization should make into a habit.

While everybody focuses on how well Santana and Meloan perform as major leaguers, the overlooked aspect is how having the two (especially Santana) could have worked to address needs at another point in time. Everybody was complaining about the Dodgers inability to get Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee or Adrian Gonzalez or some type of impact player at the trading deadline last year, right? Well, guess what the Dodgers lacked? An impact cornerstone type of player in the advanced minor leagues. So there has already been major league impact, if you look at it that way. That's why I feel, whether they bust or not, it was still not a wise trade to make because it showed poor asset management.

Frank again makes a cryptic and vague statement about the Santana deal in an attempt to basically move on:

"The Santana trade is an example of ... the pressure to trade players in course of season," McCourt said. "You give up real value for that. Sometimes you're able to -- sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's not. Sometimes what you give up is less than what you thought it was, sometimes it's more than what you thought it was. There's always pulls and tugs on this."

Okay, great. I think we all know there's pressure and that there's difficulty. Thanks for the information, brosef.

Update 3: Frank talking about spending money on the draft and going overslot on Garrett Gould:

"My personal opinion is that in the amateur draft, we do extremely well at living within the system that's in place," McCourt said. "We're one of 30 teams. And even though we're a big-market team, and we could step out and go on our own way and blow through the sort of recommended slotting for each of these, and just go ahead and turn our back on the other 29 clubs and go ahead and pay anything for anybody, I think it's the wrong thing to do philosophically. We’re one of 30 clubs. We should play by an overall understanding that the draft is designed for a reason. It was designed to give teams that didn't do as well the opportunity to sign the best players, if they were smart enough to identify those players, for a certain amount of money."

Uh, the reason you went overslot is because you didn't have a first rounder in the first place. Sorry, but the fact remains that the Dodgers are at the bottom third in draft spending over the last three years.

As Jon later mentions, the draft problem is made worse by the fact that the Dodgers don't make many amateur signings, as Frank himself admits:

And even McCourt admits that there has been places of weakness in amateur signings under the current ownership.

"We have to do better in the international arena," he said. "That's to me as much of a function of our ability to actually identify the talent that we want to sign. I think we need to spend more money singing international players and young talent from around the world that we can bring here. Find me the talent, and we'll sign it. But you've got to find the talent. We need to do a better job, and Ned is doing that now. He is now focused on expanding our scouting and the quality of our scouting and the quality of our identifying these types of players."

Big money amateur signings are usually overrated, so I don't mind passing on that aspect, but the Dodgers seem to be getting almost nothing from Latin America or Asian amateur signings.

Update 4: Frank on the Dodgers budget:

"Generally speaking, we do spend at that level just below the Yankees and the Red Sox," McCourt said. "I think our focus has to be on generating additional revenues so that we can spend and compete regularly. I'm not saying we're going to get to the Yankees' level, but I'd certainly like to close the gap."

Nobody says the Dodgers need to spend like the Yankees, but there's a middle ground between being a huge market team that's trying to spend less than 100 million dollars, and spending 250 million dollars or whatever the Yankee payroll is at.

Like i've said a million times before, us Dodger fans are not complete idiots, stop treating us like we are. The Dodgers have a payroll just below the Yankees and the Red Sox? Ugh. Come on.

On the upside, Frank says he does understand that overreacting is not the way to endear himself to fans:

"To me, what I wouldn't do is do something that was rash and short-term and give up a bunch of young talent which would have impact for years to come, in order to do something in the short term. But the one thing about signing a free agent that is beneficial is, it's just money. It's just money. And if you've signed the right player, that can help you then and there, and you can keep your prospects intact, it can be a very, very smart thing to do."

Actions speak louder than words. We're hoping.

Clayton Kershaw And Pitching To Contact

About a month ago, the merits of pitching to contact was a point of contention in the comments section of one of my posts, and I recall one commenter specifically asking whether the concept of "pitching to contact" is more about throwing strikes than anything else.

The short answer? Yes, it's about throwing the ball in the zone as frequent as possible, not about trying to actually initiate contact.

The long answer? It's a little more complicated on a case by case basis, so let's just focus on the often cited case of Clayton Kershaw for now.

From my own personal observation, it seems that Dodgers fans frequently get frustrated with Kershaw's inability to work deep into games. This, of course, is a byproduct of striking out a lot of batters and having control issues. Naturally, this leads both the mainstream press and general fans to suggest that Kershaw "pitch to contact" so that he can increase his efficiency.

My problem with this suggestion is that purposely trying to initiate contact from the batter is not what you want to do on the mound, especially as a flyball pitcher. Besides, even when Kershaw does throw strikes, he's just impossibly difficult to hit. Therefore, in order for him to "pitch to contact" as many would suggest, he would have to become more hittable and essentially groove pitches to major league batters, which is a horrid idea.

Consider that Kershaw's overall split OPS (sOPS+) in 2009 was 59 (.588), so he's significantly better than league average to begin with. Now given that information, if Kershaw truly has overwhelming raw stuff, we should see him post a better split OPS when he's behind in the count than his overall split OPS of 59^. After all, in those situations, the batter is at a considerable advantage, as he is able to sit on a pitch type or location. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be helping them much.

^This is because pitchers with average stuff or worse can't rely on their raw stuff to get them out of scenarios in which they fall behind in the count. If we presume that Kershaw has plus raw stuff, then we would expect him to improve in these situations when compared to the rest of the league. A 101 mph fastball is harder to hit than a 83 mph fastball, especially if the batter is sitting on the pitch.

When working from behind, Kershaw improved on his overall split OPS numbers in every situation, and that's exactly what you would expect from a guy with plus stuff. So even when batters are in the advantage, Kershaw is still extremely difficult to deal with. Furthermore, among pitchers with 150 innings, Kershaw had the 13th lowest overall contact percentage (76.7%), and when measuring just those pitches thrown in the strike zone, we find that Kershaw had the 6th lowest zone contact percentage (83.3%).

So the problem isn't that he needs to generate contact to end innings faster, the "problem" is that even when he does throw strikes, he's just not an easy man to make contact off of. Therefore, the only real way for him to purposely induce contact would be to tone down his repertoire, as that would make him inherently more hittable. Though I can't imagine why in the world anybody would want him to do such a thing.

The bottom line is that Kershaw doesn't need to strike out less batters or "pitch to contact", what he really needs to do is throw more strikes. I know that is a simplistic conclusion, but it's also the truth. The combination of efficiency and effectiveness will not come from an effort to induce contact, but rather from simply putting the ball in the zone consistently with the same kind of raw stuff he's currently showing. Now whether Kershaw takes the next step in his development hinges on his ability to control his outstanding pitches, and it remains to be seen whether or not he can do it. However, the one thing that won't benefit him is the absurd notion that he should dial down his talent in order to induce contact.

***I realize that the argument many people will use to refute this idea are guys like Roy Halladay and Chris Carpenter. These are individuals who are elite pitchers, who are efficient, and who have low strikeout rates. I fully understand all of that, but it still doesn't mean they can actively pitch to contact or that it would work for Kershaw.

To start, both of them are groundball pitchers, something that Kershaw is not. Hence, even when inducing contact, they are far less likely to give up a home run, since the chances of giving up a ground ball gopher ball are...zero. Furthermore, both of them have plus plus control, and while they both have good stuff, neither of them have ever been particularly hard to make contact against. Hence, their efficiency and low strikeout rates are a factor of always being in the zone and not generating many swings and misses.

Point being, both of them are efficient and effective because they throw a lot of strikes, not necessarily because they "pitch to contact". As it is, if you combined their control with Kershaw's strikeout rate, you have the second coming of Sandy Koufax, and I don't think anybody would be complaining about that.***

Spring Training Doesn't Mean Anything

All of these non-roster invitees got me thinking about one thing recently: are the Dodgers really going to make significant roster decisions based on who hits or pitches better in a couple weeks of exhibition games?

That seems like a foolish exercise to me, as it's akin to releasing a player because he does poorly in the first month of the season. Well, probably much worse than that, since the regular starters aren't even playing in Spring Training, and if they are, they aren't playing at full capacity.

Would Brian Giles posting a 1.500 OPS in Spring Training really help him make the team over Doug Mientkiewicz? I suppose it would, but I don't see why, since it proves essentially nothing.

Just something to think about as Spring Training gets underway.

Dodgers Sign Brian Giles

Yes, i've heard about it too.

No, i'm not doing anything but watching the Super Bowl today (maybe tweeting, it's addicting), so i'll update this later or something.

Honestly though, I don't even care that much. :o

Update: Here you go. Maybe he's useful off the bench, but probably not. Either way, it's just a minor league deal.

So...Is Praising Dan Evans A Touchy Subject Or Something?

I ask because apparently there was an article written by new Los Angeles Times Dodgers blogger Steve Dilbeck entitled "Dan Evans looks good in retrospect", but it was deleted. I was actually interested in reading the article when I first heard about it, and thought that this kind of stuff might get me to put the blog back on my RSS feed or something, but when I went to click on the supposed link (here), I got nothing but a blank page.

The article wasn't up long enough for Google to cache it either, so all I found was this:

You didn’t have to be psychic to see how that was going to end. Evans was bid adieu. McCourt then hired Paul DePodesta , who lasted 20 months. “You can’t go back and change history,” he said. “I had a good time. I loved going to work every day.

Want to read.

All i'm going to say about this is that I hope this was an editing mistake or they were planning to use the article at a later date, because if not...well...you know.

Update-Hooray, the article is back. Time to read.