Categorized | Mark Timmons

The Rumor Mill Is Crap!

The Rumor Mill Is Crap!

rumorsLet me remind you that trades I suggest are totally bogus, and the rumors floated by fish hacks such as Rosenthal, Gammons, Nightengale and other are pure drivel!  Go to Barnes and Noble and buy a good fiction book.  It will be more realistic!

That said – sign Beltre!

This just in:  The Dodgers will build a new 12-story building at Chavez Ravine to house all the Rumors!

Believe none of what you hear and 21.7% of what you see!


You should Believe EVERYTHING I write!

Come on, drink the Kool-Aid!

About Mark Timmons

When you see the invisible, you can do the impossible!

24 Responses to “The Rumor Mill Is Crap!”

  1. Badger says:

    “I didn’t say I agreed with all that Chad wrote, but he has a plan.

    I like that.”

    What, you didn’t like my plan?

    His plan is to continue to stretch payroll to guys that no longer play for us. Some of that must be done of course, but, so much of it? What does that say about the GM that signed all those guys we are dumping but still have to pay?

    Uggla huh? OK. If that’s the plan we can all agree on then make it so. At this point, what does it really matter? We won’t know how this team is going to really shape up until we know more about how the McCourts plan to pay themselves, their bank mortgages, their lawyers and their credit card bills.

    Sign Beltre? And what do you plan on doing with Blake? Oh yeah, continue to pay him and send him somewhere else.

    I still don’t understand why we don’t just re-sing Hudson and his .283 avg. and Gold Glove, re-sign Wolf, go with Knuckles, Weaver, Schlichting and whoever and tee it up.

    • kensai says:

      None of my suggestions have me stretching payroll to guys that no longer play for us. Where do I suggest that?

      If you’re talking about the Manny/Andruw/Garciappara section of the plan, well I can’t control what deals Ned Colletti made in the past, can I? No matter the plan those are guaranteed commits.

      Re-signing Hudson is a problem because despite his lip service, he’s not happy with the way he was treated, so unless he finds no market and he’s desperate, or the Dodgers win a bidding war (unlikely), I don’t see why he would return.

  2. kensai says:


    “Come on he did not even have a clue about Belisario last spring so what could he know?”

    Are you discrediting everything I have to say simply because I did not know that Ronald Belisario, who struggled in AA ball as a 25-year-old, would post an ERA of 2.04 after jumping to the major leagues? He also had disciplinary issues, as we even saw this year with the DUI. You can state that he had a plus fastball, but he always had that. That wasn’t the reason he got left off scouting reports.

    I would suspect that not many people saw it coming, including a ton of people within baseball that passed on him, so if you did, then congratulations. However, it’s not like he was some mega prospect with a plus arm, plus makeup and plus command that I just completely overlooked or something.

    “Dan Ugla? No way!”


    I thought a power option was what people on this site wanted? I don’t disagree at all that it was a needed point of emphasis, as Mark has pointed out with Adrian Beltre posts.

    He’s also a guy who is always described as “tough” or “gritty” or whatever other superlative people like to crown David Eckstein with. I figured that would gain some bonus points, no?

    “Long term contracts? No way any agent will let his player sign a long term contract until after the Cable deal is done.”

    What does a cable deal have to do with signing a contract? If you’re saying that after a cable deal the Dodgers would offer more money, I don’t agree with that either. You offer a contract based on worth, not because you are flush with cash. You can take more risks when you have money, true, but overpaying for players under team control just because you have money is not the way you want a franchise to do business anyway. If you are in a bidding war on the free agent market for elite players (Teixeira/A-Rod/Sabathia/Holliday/Etc) then I would agree, but if you up the bid on team controlled players, you’re essentially bidding against yourself.

  3. kensai says:


    You stated you wanted Beltre for his power, and he should bring that to the table, especially away from Safeco which is even more of a pitcher’s park than Dodgers Stadium.

    However, the reason he’s perennially undervalued to me is his Gold Glove defense. He’s a legit winner too, as he’s been the best for a long long time now. Would love to have him at third instead of Blake, but having Blake is my problem.

    The reason I don’t think the Dodgers can sign Beltre is I don’t think they can move Blake’s contract, mainly due to his age and lack of need for players like him. If they don’t move the contract, they can’t afford to have a player making that much money on the bench anymore. Guys like Pierre are not just a luxury when your payroll is in the crapper, unfortunately.

    I dunno, maybe they can get creative and move Loney in a trade, shift Blake to first, and Beltre to third, but it’s a long shot that any team wants Loney at this point.

  4. Badger says:

    “Where do I suggest that?”

    Pierre. And of course, if we move Blake to accomodate Beltre, we would have to do the same thing with him.

    Of course Hudson is unhappy with how he was treated. He was benched. We can make it up to him by offering him a two year contract. At least make the offer. If he refuses, well, then it’s on him. And frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he told the Dodgers to shove it.

    “You offer a contract based on worth, not because you are flush with cash.”

    Have to disagree with you there. I am sure you are aware of what is going on with Dodger ownership. They will not have any disposable income for a while. Whoever wins this battle, and it could take two years to decide, will be much better off when the cable deal is finally in place. When that happens, with the right owner, we could become the West Coast Yankees.

    Look, with the exception of believing you could get Bedard for $4M, I commend you on your plan. Obviously a lot of thought went into it. And with the right GM, and a quick resolution to the legal issues, I think your plan could actually work. But I don’t think we have the right GM and the instability of the ownership just might cause some FA’s to wait.

    I think it is vital to get our young guys locked up, if they will even do it. If we can do that, we have enough right now to compete.

  5. Badger says:

    One more thing:

    “but it’s a long shot that any team wants Loney at this point.”

    That is pure nonsense. There would be teams lining up for him. He is a career .295 hitter and he is just now entering his prime.

  6. Mark Timmons says:

    I just liked Kensai’s reasoning – I don’t really want Uggla, but we do need power.

    On Belisario: I was there for 7 days last spring and watched him. What I saw led me to believe he could not pitch in the majors. He was horrid and had ZERO control. If anyone predicted he would make the team, they were high on some sort of controlled-substance.

    Keep up the conversation. Keep it fun!

    • Ken says:

      I was not high on anything and I predicted his ability. You can look at my posts on this blog and teh responses from others who first disagreed with me and then ask me for more information about him. Check the archives.

  7. Badger says:

    Manny, Kemp, Loney, Ethier – that’s quite a bit of power if the younger ones all take one more step toward maturity – and there is reason to believe they will. Throw Blake and his 18 (maybe) HR, Martin might get double figures, and this team could score some runs.

    I don’t see much speed in our lineup, so, OBP is a must. I believe in OPS rather than just HR’s. Get on base and have a .500 slugging % and you are my kind of guy. And, I think defense is going to be much needed next year. That is one of the main reasons I want Hudson back. Martin, Furcal, Hudson and Kemp makes us strong up the middle.

  8. Bill Russell says:

    Just checkin in. It’s hard for me to get into any rumor mill stuff this year knowing the Ownership situation and the toll it’s going to take on the team. Personally, I feel we have bigger needs then 3rd base, Like pitching and 2nd base. But this is why it’s called the Hot Stove winter, it’s for people to dream up crazy deals for their favorite team over the winter while trying to stay warm. Maybe Ned can work on a deal for the second coming of Andy La Roche. He’s the big power stick out of Pittsburgh in case anyone has forgotten.
    I just can’t figure out why we would spend alot of time this winter working on a trade for a guy that is represented by Boras and played in 111 games with 8 HR’s last year. Yes , I would be speaking about Beltre. I know he had a bad year last year but don’t except to buy low with a Boras client. His previous years since the Steriod year in 2004, he belted 25 dingers with Seattle. I feel we would be pouring money into the wrong area by heading down that path. But if it makes my friend Mark happy, then it’s worth the McCourts $. We just don’t know which pocket it would come out of yet. Jamies or Franks
    Hopefully Ned will spend the entire winter working on deals for Pitching. For two playoff years in a row, we have died in the playoffs because of our starting pitching, yes among other things. But having Randy Wolf the Ace the first round and then Padilla our Ace the second round with Wolf being pushed back to 4th in the rotation is a sign that somethings wrong in D-ville. Even Stevie Wonder can see what our biggest needs are.

  9. A Shot of Haeger says:

    I love the rumor mill or the Hot Stove. Of course 99% of it is crap, but it’s fun to speculate.

    What I do find boring is the 15 paragraph legal stuff about the McCourt’s divorce posted on this site. lawdog and Ken, you guys write eloquently and state your views very well. I know the drama between these two is going to be interesting….. but the legalese just puts me to sleep. If there’s a way you can dumb it down for me, maybe I’ll start enjoying my favorite Dodger blog again, even if it is going once a week.

    As far as Beltre, I’d be okay with signing him if it was a one year deal and less the 6 million a year. I could live with Blake at first and trading Loney, only if Loney was traded for the following two players. Prince Fielder or Adrian Gonzalez, otherwise no.

    The Dodgers will spend money and they’ll make a splash in free agency somewhere, for no other reason than the McCourts are worried about their image, they’ve always been worried about their image ever since they bought the team.

    Everyone hates them now…. in their minds, one of them is going to own the team, whether that is true in the future remains to be seen, after this is over…whenever that is…. there’s going to be backlash… from whichever one of the two is left… if they ever want to survive and to get players to want to come here again and to get the fans who will become disillusioned during this whole process to continue to come back, they have to operate business as usual.

    • Ken says:

      I am trying very hard to NOT write about the divorce. That is why I provided links to law school outlines several days ago so that everyone could have a basic understanding of California family and community property law so that those that wish to follow the drama will understand what is happenning. However, when people post ideas that probably do not take into account the divorce rules I feel compelled to write. As I wrote yesterday, my opinon is that Franks’ side is currently dealing more with bean counters than attorneys and writing about the bean counters might be even more boring, even though it is part the basis for Hot Stove activities.

  10. lawdog says:

    Sorry about the legalese Shotsky. You have to understand. It’s a curse! Once one learns the language it becomes second nature to speak it as if it were one’s primary language. I used to dictate Complaints with multiple causes of action as if I were making a shopping list.

    But I’ll do my best to cut out the 64 dollar words and create sentences that you don’t need a legal degree to follow. :roll:

  11. Badger says:

    “but the legalese just puts me to sleep”

    I know what you mean. Boring stuff. My suggestion – don’t read it. Some of us are actually interested in what is happening with the Dodger owners and we have two lawyers on board here, so, I defer the translation to them.

    Blake at first base? Uh, I don’t think so. We are just stuck with the dude unless Chad can figure a way to pay a team to take him. We could maybe do a deal with San Diego, but why would they do it? Gonzalez is just not that expensive for them so it would take a really sweet deal for them to part with him, especially when it comes to the Dodgers. If we do something stupid, they would bite, but they won’t do anything to help us. Personally I don’t trade Loney. He is just now coming into his prime and though I don’t see him as a 40 HR guy, I certainly think he can hit 25, bat .300 and win a few Gold Gloves. I’ll take it because he will be affordable for a few more years.

    And though I agree in principal with your last sentence, I still don’t see how either of them are going to pull it off.

    “the McCourts are worried about their image, they’ve always been worried about their image ever since they bought the team.”

    No argument on that point. The question remains, where will they get the money to spend? These people have been spending like Michael Jackson and are under an enormous amount of debt (I believe it’s mentioned in the material that put you to sleep) so where do they get the money to further into debt?

  12. GoNzO says:

    What’s Joel Guzman doing these days? I hear he could be had for cheap. I also hear he is a blue chip can’t miss prospect.

    The more I read about the McC’s the more I am convinced they will not be the owners. What is the over under that one of them will file for Banckruptcy?

  13. Ken says:

    In my opinon the Dodger minor league system in not close to what it was just a short 4 years ago. In my opinion the Dodger minor league system has enough good players to make ONE good trade in the next 2 years. In my opinion the Dodgers should only trade these limited number of players for a #1 or #2 pitcher. Not for an average player at 2nd base.

    Yea, Logan White did a great job 5 years ago but where are the future stars now? Fiscally motived trades, insufficient budgets, bad picks and poor development have depleted the Dodger’s minor league system. The value of the Dodgers will not be increasing due to the Minor leaque players.

    There are 2-3 teams that have a combination of possible excess pitching and probable limited budgets. These are the teams that the Dodgers should be talking to, in competitiion with many other teams, in order to obtain pitching. If the Dodgers do not trade for a #1 or 2 pitcher then they should not make a single trade this off season, except maybe to let Pierre play somewhere. Go after average Free Agents and do not deplete the minor league roster any longer.

  14. Badger says:

    Makes perfect sense to me Ken.

    That is why I have been saying just go with what we have until the divorce dust settles. This isn’t a bad team right now. With Manny back full time, and the rift between Hudson and the Dogs fixed, (if not, sign Lopez) re-sign Wolf and go for it. We have a few prospects that could actually grow up next year – Elbert, Paul, Lindlbom, Dee Gordon, Lambo, Hu, DeWitt – and there are the young pitchers that could be very good in another couple of years. The cupboard may be thin but it isn’t bare. We have enough already here (just get them signed) to compete. I don’t see the Dodgers winning it all until there is new ownership, but it’s not like the ceiling is going to cave in on them. We can still win the West just by adding a starting pitcher – and Wolf is sitting right there.

  15. Ken says:

    2010 Plan
    POST ARB at approximately $85 mil, plus $16 – $23 mil per below) equals $101 – $108 mil

    Pitchers (20):

    Starters (5):
    Wolf or Trade (ADD $8 mil or $4 mil)
    Kuroda (Last Year with Dodgers)
    Padilla or Free Agent gamble w/ formerly injured player ($5-$8 Mil)

    Long Relief (3):
    Weaver (Add $1 mil)

    Short Relief (4):

    McDonald (Starter Candidate in 2011)
    Elbert (Starter Candidate in 2011)
    Troncoso (Starter Candidate in 2011)

    Position Players (20):

    Catchers (2)
    Ausmus ($1 mil plus coaching contract)

    Infield (7)
    DeWitt (Platoon)

    Belliard (Platoon) ADD $3 mil
    Castro (Type Player) ADD $1 mil
    Mintkaweitz ADD $1 mil

    Outfield (4):


    Minors (7):
    Ellis (C)
    May (C)
    DeJesus (IF)
    Hu (IF)
    Paul (OF)
    Robinson (OF)
    New Player?

    Release (1)

  16. lawdog says:

    I’ll get back on the Ben Sheetsmobile! I think he’d look just dandy in blue! ;)

  17. lawdog says:

    If you Sheets in my car I will kill you!!!

  18. Mark Timmons says:


    Put down the Molson and back away slowly!

  19. A Shot of Haeger says:

    I actually like Ben Sheets on a one year deal. He’s probably going to have to take a one year deal in order to get the long term deal he really wants.

    As far as the legalese, you’re right…. I just won’t read it.

    This is going to play itself out however it plays itself out. I don’t think it’s as bad a situation as the naysayers say it is or as good as the yaysayers say it is. It’s definitely somewhere in between.

    The divorce is going to get ugly, that’s for sure, but I truly believe the McCourts are too ego driven and self-centered to allow the product on the field to fail regardless of how bad their life together has failed…. because they care more about how they look in other people’s eyes than how they look too each other.

    You guys kick ass on the legal stuff, I know egocentric people. I work in TV news. McCourt is Mother Teresa compared to them.

  20. A Shot of Haeger says:

    As far as having the money to spend, they’ll overdraft in order to keep us competitive and get the money from somewhere else…. where I have no idea.

  21. Badger says:

    “they’ll overdraft in order to keep us competitive and get the money from somewhere else…. where I have no idea.”

    May I assume you have never been through a divorce Haeger?

    Some basics – if you are going through a divorce it is already probably obvious that financial problems seem to pop up and/or grow. Exposure is not only mandatory it is penetrating and it is relentless. What to do?

    A. This one is simple…… reduce, reduce, reduce. Reduce your overhead expenses by reducing or eliminating expenses that are superfluous. There is a difference between wants and needs. Granted, the McCourts are in a different league, but the rules are basically the same for them. They WANT to field a team of All Stars and HOFers and win the Championship. They NEED to reduce their expenses.

    B. If possible, access the equity you already have. A recurring problem during divorces is accessing equity and cash in property and formerly shared banking accounts, stocks, bonds, and other assets. Often, pending the divorce, access to the shared assets are frozen or inaccessible. Sometimes one of the spouses had complete control over checking and savings accounts and now refuses to relinquish the control until forced by the divorce decree. Agreements are made between the parties for tax purposes and those agreements will be challenged if necessary. None of us really know what is going on behind those closed doors, but I must assume that until further notice, assets are probably frozen, or at least being chilled. And, we know the McCourts borrowed heavily to get into this ownership and leveraged property to do so. Property values have tanked. What assets are left to split?

    C. Other options to reduce expenses and increase cash of course exist during divorce proceedings. While things can become hectic and confusing during your divorce, it is important that you stop, evaluate your finances, quickly measure your options, and then take action as soon as possible before all of your best options are no longer available.

    I am sure the McCourts are being advised to put a hold on all expenses, or at least, make a visible attempt to do so. They will do the PR work of professing that it is business as usual, but anyone who has been through a divorce knows that “business as usual” is an impossibility.

    If you want an example of what a divorce does to a Major League franchise, all you have to do is look at San Diego:

    Towers was saying all the things that Colletti is saying, and Moores’ wife’s attorney said the same things that are being said now – “everyone has the Padres best interest in mind – blah blah blah” and then the Padres were stripped down to make them more attractive for sale. Their payroll went from over $70 million to $30 million. Now I am not saying that WILL happen to the Dodgers, but all of us should be prepared because it COULD happen.

    I anxiously await a move that will show me it is business as usual. I doubt anything happens until December, so in the mean time, what is there to talk about?


Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading