Ned Colletti has another attack of big-name-itis
Most Dodger fans have been hoping and praying that the Dodgers would just stand pat and do nothing this offseason. Why? Because the Dodgers are so stocked with young talent, and the free agent market this year is so bad, that the Boys in Blue would probably have a better chance of winning the division next season if they just turned things over to kids than if they blocked them with pricey, overrated, veterans of declining ability. In fact, this author feels the Dodgers probably could have won the division last year if they had let guys like Matt Kemp, James Loney, and Andy LaRoche play from the start, instead of blocking them for most of the season with “big name” veterans like Luis Gonzalez, Nomar Garciaparra, and Juan Pierre.
So when day after day of the Winter Meetings went by without the Dodgers doing anything at all, hope began,slowly but surely, to well up in the hearts of Dodger fans. Hope that maybe Colletti had finally learned his lesson and was finally going to give all that young talent, talent every team in baseball had been chasing after all fall, a chance to prove itself on the field.
We should have known better.
We should have known that there was simply no way in hell that one Ned Louis Colletti Jr. was going to leave Nashville without signing at least one “experienced veteran” to an overpriced contract which would block at least one of his hot young prospects for at least a few more years.
And so, Andruw Jones is now a Dodger.
What bothers me most about this deal is that the Dodgers could have one of the best young outfields in baseball virtually for free if they went with a lineup of Kemp, Andre Ethier, and Delwyn Young. But instead at least two of those guys are now going to be blocked by Pierre and Jones at an annual cost of nearly $30 million (it had been my secret hope that the Dodgers would take advantage of the incredible demand for centerfielders this offseason by trading Pierre).
And what bothers me almost as much about this deal are the specifics of the contract that is reportedly being given to Andruw Jones. $19 million per year??? For a player who just came off a season in which he batted .222 and had an OBP of .311??
I mean, Jones is still a pretty talented player, who may well have simply had an off year, so it would have been one thing if Colletti had shrewdly leveraged Jones’s weak performance last season to sign a decent player at a below-market price. But to make said player the fifth-highest paid player in all of baseball, behind only Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Derek Jeter, and Carlos Zambrano, especially when you don’t really have any pressing need for a centerfielder, and are now going to have to find someplace for the $45 million centerfielder you signed last year to play, is just stupidity.
The only people to whom this deal can make any sense are those who live on Planet Scott Boras, or those who let Boras take them for a ride there. My question is, why is it always the Dodgers who have to have the gullible GM who will believe whatever Boras says and hand out the most ridiculous contracts in Boras’s storied career?
When Rob Neyer chronicled the stupidest contracts given to Boras clients last month, he cited the contracts the Dodgers gave to Darren Dreifort and Kevin Brown as the two worst. This one may not be quite as bad as those two since it is only two years, but given the ridiculousness of the annual value and the fact that the Dodgers had no real need to do this, it needs to be added to Neyer’s list.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Just speculating here, but would you forgive Ned if this allowed the Dodgers to trade one or two of their OF prospects as a part of the package to get Johan?
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I don’t think that’s going to happen Paul. And even if it did, paying Andruw Jones $19 million a year after the season he just had would still be a pretty fucked up way to go about things, especially if you are going to need bajillions to sign Santana.
No, it is clear to me that Ned has no plan at all. He is just totally making this shit up on the fly and then grabbing big names whenever he can. He is probably going to go out now and trade Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw for Eric Bedard or something else unfathomably stupid.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Nick, you sort of dodged the question a bit there. Would you want to see *your* hot OF prospects traded for Santana?
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Sarah, remember when you said, “Coley, Andruw made $12.5 mill per on the 6-year deal that just expired. Yes, we know he can hit for power, and he’s still only 30, but he is a career .263 hitter who hit .222 last season. I think saying he’ll get $18 mill is generous” ????
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Well Sarah, it’s a slightly different question for the Dodgers than for the Red Sox, because if the Dodgers signed Santana that would pretty much use up all possible money and they would presumably be severely financially handicapped going forward, whereas clearly money is no object to the Red Sox anymore.
But mostly I just think it’s a moot point, because what everyone says is true, and Frank McCourt actually IS a cheapskate, so the Dodgers are definitely not going to shell out the actual big bucks it would take to sign Santana. While this is a bad deal in terms of overpaying, it is nowhere near the kind of long term money commitment it would take to sign Santana. I view this at least in part as one of those stupid PR signings that bad teams make to say “Hey! See! We spend money! We are trying to win! We just signed ANDRUW JONES. He is FAMOUS!”
But yeah, you are probably thinking that I am still dodging the question. So yeah, in short, would I trade Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw for Johan Satana, assuming money was no object at all?
Yes. Why yes I would.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Okay, thanks Nick. (What about if James Loney were part of the deal? Just curious…)
And Coley, yes, you were right. I was clearly mistaken when I failed to factor in the idiocy of Ned Colletti. Clearly, no one wins any bets banking on the intelligence and judgment of baseball executives.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Well, including Loney would be a bit extreme. He’s the everyday first baseman and Kemp and Kershaw are close approximations of Ellsbury and Lester, so adding in Loney would be something like the Red Sox trading Ellsbury, Lester, and Kevin Youkilis for Santana.
If you mean replacing Kemp with Loney, I’d probably do that trade too. Santana is a true ace.
Again, assuming money doesn’t matter, the way it doesn’t matter to the Red Sox.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Money matters to everyone. Even the Red Sox. Heck, even the Yankees said they pulled out of the Santana bidding because they had already spent so much on Posada/Pettitte/Rivera!
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Yeah, true, but I would argue that payroll actually matters less to the Red Sox than the Yankees now, because they are going to be shedding payroll in the near future. Clement is coming off the Books finally, and in two years Manny’s $20 million will come off as well. Even if they do resign Manny, you’d have to imagine it’d be for less than $20 million. Everyone else is signed long-term at relatively reasonable rates or making the minimum, and projected holes have low-cost top prospects waiting to fill them (eg Buchholz for Schilling after this season).
Meanwhile the Yankees are going in the opposite direction - they have holes everywhere and not enough prospects and just had to give out several RIDICULOUS contracts (even by Yankees standards) just to keep the ship afloat.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I may be going out on a limb, here, but I actually think that Manny will end up getting over $20m/per in his next contract. Probably won’t come from Boston, but someone will pony up. If Torii Hunter can get $18m, Manny can get $20m even as a DH. In two years, who knows how many more obscene contracts will get handed out?
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Yeah, maybe you are right, Paul, but like you say, if that happens, it certainly won’t be with the Red Sox.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Not necessarily, Nick. The Red Sox have shown they are willing to pay market value. And as a very interesting recent article on SI.com demonstrated, “market value” for even old, crappy baseball players is extremely high. And Manny may be aging, but he is still far from crappy. If Manny can bounce back at all from last year’s “abysmal” performance of .296, 20 HR, and 88 RBI (eclipsed somewhat by his postseason heroics), the Red Sox will pony up. What they won’t do is give him extra years. Like he has done for Lowell, Varitek, and Damon, Theo Epstein will assign Ramirez a certain value and not go above it—no matter what. One thing Manny will have to do to get a raise is prove he is still durable. The Red Sox don’t need a second DH, and for the past two season, Manny has only been able to play about 130 games, after playing in the 150-game range the previous three seasons. Plus, if the Red Sox do move Julian Tavarez (a.k.a. Manny’s best friend and “stable pony”) as some are speculating, Manny may lose the equanimity he has only recently gained in Boston (this is the man who wanted to bring his Cleveland clubbie to Boston, after all). But if Manny is happy in Boston, reasonably durable in left field, and productive at the plate, I see no reason for the Red Sox not to show him the money. He might even be willing to give them something of a hometown discount. After all, if he plays a couple more years with Boston, they will certainly retire his number as soon as he’s inducted into the Hall.
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The only good thing about the Dodgers signing Jones would be that they might now move Juan Pierre. The White Sox are looking fairly desperate for a center fielder/lead-off guy and they are looking to deal Joe Crede. It is only a 2 year deal so it shouldn’t cripple them financially. The advantage that Boston and New York seem to have is that even when they spend money on a guy who doesn’t pan out they still have money to spend elsewhere. It makes their mistakes less noticeable.
Nick, There have been rumblings the Dodgers are looking to trade Kemp because of his attitude. Do you think it’s likely he’ll get moved?
[Report comment]
December 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Melissa, that’s a good point. Didn’t think of the ChiSox when thinking about Pierre, who come to think of it seems like the kind of guy Kenny Williams would acquire (i.e. “crappy” - sorry, Alejandro!).
[Report comment]
December 7th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Melissa, I DO think there is a reasonable chance that Matt Kemp gets traded, which is one of my big big fears. Kemp is already an awesome player, and he’s only 24 or something like that. I mean, it would be one thing if Kemp netted us a Santana or something, but I’m worried Ned Colletti is going to trade him for a second or third tier starter, or Scott Rolen or something, AND maybe throw in Kershaw or another one of our great young players.
[Report comment]
December 7th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Here’s an interesting Andruw Jones update. In the course of my obsessive refreshing of http://www.mlbtraderumors.com, I read this article from San Diego writer Tom Krasovic, who had been talking with Padres GM Kevin Towers. At first Krasovic appears to praise the Dodgers-Jones deal: “Boras talked about getting a five-year deal for Jones, 30, but the Dodgers bought him for two years. The Dodgers smartened up from last winter, when they guaranteed Juan Pierre $45 million over five years.”
And yet just a few lines later, Krasovic writes, “It doesn’t appear Jones attracted several offers. Other than a $22-million, two-year bid from the Royals, the Dodgers may have been his only other firm bidder.”
Surely Los Angeles didn’t have to kick in another 14.2 million just to beat the lowly Royals? Maybe they’ve smartened up some…just not a lot.
[Report comment]