Categorized | Mark Timmons



The Dodger roster is finally coming together and now the discussions are changing from where is the rest of the team to why did they sign these slugs.  For the 2010 season the Dodger management, more than ever, must attempt to simultaneously win the NL West, delay the major league start dates of the future prospects (and their higher salaries), and have a fresh batch of players ready to graduate from the minors to the majors in case any of the players on the 25 man roster go on the DL for any significant length of time.  This is no small task to simultaneously accomplish these, and possibly other, partially contradictory objectives.

Most of us are of the opinion that the Dodger management is behaving as if without trading a player like Sherrill, the Dodgers do not have the budget, or the prospects, to go out and find replacements during the 2010 season.  Supporting this view is the Dodgers stockpiling of veterans on the 25 man bench, has beens in AAA, and prospects in AAA and AA.

In my opinion this is the correct approach for the 2010 season.  One factor is the increasing salary of the Dodger’s young stars.  Even with Manny, Kuroda, Padilla, and a few others probably not coming back for 2011 or 2012, the Dodger projected player salaries for those two future years is already more than $80 mil. With a 2011 team salary of $85 mil that is missing at least 2 starter pitchers, 1-2 position players, and several bench players, I conclude that the Dodger’s organizational Budget and Payroll is going to be a major issue for several years. 

Therefore, the Dodgers can no longer afford to sign multiple free agents.  Now they must develop the young players.  This approach may cause consternation among those of us that hope for a World Series title this decade. The current economic reality is the new reality and I for one will not be an ostrich and pretend otherwise.  (I am not a Politician) Maybe we can hope for another season with players who play most of the season in the zone like 1988.  Who will rise to the top this year?  Will the Coaches allow the players to pace themselves in 2010?  Will the pitchers learn how to trust their stuff, use the same correct pitching motion more than 50 percent of the time, and will the starters be forced to maintain a level of endurance that is necessary for them to actually make more than 90 pitches in a game?

Considering the Dodger’s unfunded future payroll obligations I am content with the following pitching plan for 2010:

Starting Pitching

  1. Billingsley
  2. Kershaw
  3. Kuroda
  4. Padilla
  5. Stults

Long Relief

  1. Weaver (Add to 40-man roster at the end of spring training)
    1. Heager
    2. Monasterios or Zerpa (Waive one of them at the end of spring training)

Short Relief

  1. Broxton
  2. Sherrill  (Candidate for a Trade)
  3. Belisario
  4. Kuo

Starters building innings at AAA or AA for 2011 rotation opportunity

  1. McDonald
  2. Lindblum
  3. Troncoso
  4. Elbert
  5. Link

Starting Pitching alternatives in case of a starter going on the 15 day DL

  1. McDonald
  2. Troncoso
  3. Elbert
  4. Link

Starting Pitching additional alternatives in case of a starter going on the 60 day DL

  1. Josh Lindblum
  2. Russ Ortiz
  3. Ramon Ortiz
  4. Alberto Bastardo

Relievers building experience for 2011 bullpen opportunity

  1. Wade
  2. Schlitling
  3. Leach
  4. Jensen
  5. Guerra

Reliever alternatives in case of a reliever going on the 15 day DL

  1. Wade
  2. Schlitling
  3. Leach
  4. Jensen
  5. Guerra

Reliever additional alternatives in case of a reliever going on the 60 day DL

  1. Justin Miller
  2. Luis Ayala
  3. Francisco Felix
  4. Josh Towers

About Ken

Ken is a professional working in multiple disciplines who has participated in various sports from elementary school through post intercollegiate level. He may be the only athlete in intercollegiate sports history to have started as both a middle blocker on an intercollegiate volleyball team and as a hook on an intercollegiate rugby team during the same season. He has been a Dodger fan since youth and now regularly watches over 150 Dodger games per season.


  1. Bill Russell says:

    Ha Ha Ha, just read that Manny was seriously considering opting out of his contract this year with the Dodgers. Trying to sign on with a American League team in November for two years $32 million. I know the guy only has half a brain but did Scott Boras finally have to tell him the truth about his current abilities and status in baseball? How will the fans react now knowing that Manny wanted out of LA? The fans backed this idiot even during the steriod / birth control scandal and now he wants out to better himself. Why? because of Greed? Well if I were Ned, I would try to find a trading partner for this bum in the second half and use the money to keep Sherrill. The Yankme’s might need a high priced slugger for the second half. We know Boston will never take him back. I hope the Dodgers don’t stock up on Manny wig’s this year because they just might not sale off the shelves in 2010. But who knows, if he starts out hot the fans will forgive.
    Mannyweird will be the new slogan in left.

  2. Rory says:

    Manny’s only value is if he is still a thumper. If Manny can still hit, we have options and he is going to be worth the $20 mil. If he is hitting like Manny, he is both a huge draw and a powerful offensive weapon. We can use him, or we can lose him in a trade. Either way it’s a win.

    But, if he has lost it, he is worthless to us or an A.L. team. And that will be an enormous olive to choke down.

    As for paying our guys – well, yeah, of course they are going to demand high salaries. Are any of them $20 million a year guys? I don’t think so. We can keep Kemp and Ethier for years for what we pay Manny. Loney can be paid Blake money for at least 3 more years and Bills and Kershaw aren’t going to make the huge bucks for a while yet. We are the Dodgers, not the Marlins. If this team doesn’t have a $120 million payroll it’s because we have the wrong owner.

  3. mark says:

    If only the Dodgers had listened to me last winter and not signed Manny. We might be sitting here with Cliff Lee in the rotation and somebody like Vlad or Damon in LF.

  4. Rory says:

    The signing of Manny last year made pefect sense. He was coming off a monster year that sent us to the NLCS. He was putting b.i.s. and he was the hitter we haven’t had around here in – actually Manny is better than anyone the Dodgers have had in years. Who knew it was driven by steroids. Of course he did. I wonder if Borass knew.

    If the Dodgers had listened to me back in 2004, we would not have McCourt as an owner. We would have a Stinebumper type owner that could promote, and write huge checks. We would have an owner that had enough of his own money that he could have paid Fox what they wanted and not had to sign any agreements about cable restrictions. The Red Sox turned Frankie down. The Angels said no way. And the Tampa Bay Bucs rejected his bid. But Selig and MLB? – come on down Frankenjamie!

    Hindsight is actually 20/10.

  5. Voldomer says:

    Mover, maybe Damon or Vlad, but a) at this stage in their careers, would either be better than Pierre, and b) how would Manny’s absence have influenced the number of prospects Ned would trade?

  6. DRomo says:

    Vlad has been done for a few years now. Johnny Damon can still play. He has pop and can still run he is just God Awful in the field. Look for Manny to have a bounce back year. I guarantee he will hit .300 and hit 25-30 HRs. I don’t think that is a stretch. Playing a full season (140 games or so)

    I do agree with Marks bigger point here we did the the right thing not spending money this offseason. Here’s why. Which 1 free agent puts us over the top? Was there 1 bat or pitcher that was a free agent that gets us into the World Series? I say NO.

    Then if you trade for a Roy Halladay (which most experts say our offer was better) what is the cost ? Does that weaken our rotation after our ace? I think it does.As much as I want to win now why gut the farm system for 1 player, then be out of contention all together in a few years while we wait tfor a new batch of kids. The point is I think we will be in great shape to add a piece next offseason and this July. We will have payroll flexibility and still be able to keep our young core. Look we have been 1 step away from the WS two years in a row, why tear apart the team?

    We’ll be OK.

    By the way Mark I found an article for you. Enjoy…WHO DAT!!

  7. Rory says:

    What was our offer for Halladay? All I ever read were rumors that it included Martin and Lindblom, and they were just rumors. I really don’t believe we were ever in the Halladay deal because it would be impossible for the Dodgers to extend his contract. We can’t afford a pitcher like Halladay.

    “Which 1 free agent puts us over the top?”

    Well, since we let Wolf and Hudson walk without compensation the obvious answer to that is NOBODY. If we still have Wolf and Hudson, the answer is Halladay. With Manny in the lineup everyday, as long as he is still as good as you say he will be, with Halladay and the improvement of our young talent (especially the predictions that Mark has proffered) and Hudson batting second in the lineup, we are right with the Phillies. If Manny was hitting last Fall the way he was hitting the year before, I would love to tee it up again with the Phillies with Halladay in the rotation. Halladay, Wolf, Billingsley, Kershaw and Kuroda. In the words of the great world leader George W. “Bring ‘em on!”

  8. DRomo says:

    Rory you are making my case to easy here. The question was
    “Which 1 free agent puts us over the top?” Key word = FREE AGENT

    Halladay was not a free agent. The offer for a trade didn’t mean he was going to get extended. Philly chose to do that and rightly so. I ahd heard from multiple sources that the Dodger offer was better and the Blue Jays liked it, however Halladay wanted to train in FLA and stay near the East Coast. So it goes. As for The Glass man Hudson and Randy Wolf, I think we should have offered Wolf arbitration but not Hudson. Hudson might have accepted it and we would be on the hook for close to $10 million easily based on what his final salary was. He is great defensivley and decent w/ the bat but I see him declining and far too fragile. O-Dog is learning the hard truth, you are only worth what people will pay you, right now he is unemployed. Good luck on your 1 yr/$3-5 million deal in Washington O-Dog. You aren’t getting the $10 million deal you are asking for.

    I liked Wolf but lets face it he had a career year and he is a 4th starter at best and is easily replaced by Padilla or a healthy Kuroda. I’ll even go out on a limb and say if Stultz is given a shot he could be as good as Wolf will be this year. Besides we will be in the market for another starter and I would be shocked if we don’t add another arm by opening day. It isn’t the end of the world Rory. Our staff will be fine.

  9. Bill Russell says:

    Romo, I normally agree with you but Wolf is currently better then a #4 starter. Not worth the money the Brewers forked out however. My only issue with Wolf is that when he pitched to an all righty lineup, he got hit/beat like a red headed step child. I pretty much agree with your take on the one free agent that would put us over the top this year. Holliday if he could play 2nd base or Lackey would have been nice but not even they could have pushed us past Philley at this point. Hopefully we can win the West and pick up a few pieces for the playoffs. I at least have hope and that’s all you need. A chip and a chair…… Go Blue. :smile:

  10. Mark Timmons says:

    Hindsight is 20-20, but I still say that not knowing what we know now, Wolf might have been put in a position to accect arbitration. He was burned once a couple of years ago, when he didn’t jump on the Astros offer. I think it’s better than 50-50 he would have accepted, knowing that he could get $10 -12 mil.

    And, I will say it again: If you think the reason the Dodgers didn’t offer arbitration to Wolf and Hudson was so that they wouldn’t have to pay a signing bonus, you simply have no ability to reason. I have read some national writers say that and all I can say is that they are stupider than they look when they write such rubbish. How much do you think the Dodgers would have saved on signing bonuses. Really? Think it through.

  11. Roger Dodger says:

    Mark, I have heard that on the MLB Network — that the Dodgers did not offer arbitration to them, because if they did get the two high draft picks, they might have to pay out some serious draft money –

    I think they might know something of what the Dodgers have put up for — spending NO MORE than X dollars.

    Unless McCourt does go out now (Feb) and sign a larger contract with someone than one of these many minor league signings they have been doing — then I feel maybe they really do have that cut off point.

    If that is not the case then they are either stupid and forgot to turn in the papers — or — did not think that either Wolf or Hudson would perform in 2010.

    They also might have been worried (last fall) about the contract talks with Kemp, Ethier and the others — in that they might have had to go higher.

    One thing to maybe agree on is — the Dodgers do not have the cash-register drawer open very far. Maybe go as far to say — they would risk finishing in 2nd, 3rd, even 4th place in the West — than spend another $10 million or so in 2010.

    But all of this is no big deal — it is over (Wolf & Hudson) and McCourt has bigger worries than our talking on a fan board. He has to find a way to give his ex-wife-to-be $450,000 a month to live on.

  12. SpokaneBob says:

    We don’t need Jeff Weaver!

    If Stultz gets the 5th spot, and I believe it is his to lose. Then Heager becomes a perfect long man who can also step into the rotation if needed.

    I see the pen this way if we carry 12 pitchers.


  13. lawdog says:

    I hope Haeger gets the 5th starter spot. I think he’ll be most effective in that slot or else as a regular set up man for our closer bringing the 102 mph heat. For a knuckler to be effective he must throw regularly and often. If he can’t be either a starter or set up man, then using him in long relief would be better than leaving him down on the farm where he already has shown and done all he can do at that level, but it would be a waste of his talent and probably diminish his skills somewhat through long periods of inactivity.

    I agree with Bob that we must utilize the talent Haeger brings this year. People shouldn’t be afraid of him because he throws an unusual pitch. A dancer, properly thrown in the strike zone is probably the most effective pitch in the world. Haeger has a dandy and he can throw it for strikes.

  14. lawdog says:

    Here’s a copy of the email I sent to my Professor friend from college in response to an article he sent me supporting the recent Supreme Court’s decision to permit corporations to give unlimited funds to political campaigns as a form of free speech. I know it’s off topic, but nothing is up right now baseball wise. And Supreme Court rulings like this are less about politics than where it is taking our country. I hope ya’ll find it interesting. I’m not trying to start a debate. Just provide some food for thought. It’s just one man’s opinion, (mine), about where the ruling is going to take our country in the near future.


    There is a huge difference between abridgment of the right to “free speech” and permitting corporations, who are not individuals within the meaning of the bill of rights to begin with, to pour as much money into political campaigns as they desire, without any regulations whatsoever. Unlike human beings, corporations have only one duty and that is to maximize profits for their specific shareholders. To give them the same rights as humans in terms of free speech would be ludicrous. By their very definition, they have no “heart” or “concern for others” besides those particular persons who’ve invested in the corporation to earn money on their investment.

    While the same may be true for many humans (being disinterested in humans unless they can be manipulated to increase their personal wealth), not all humans are heartless and void of compassion.

    To allow corporations to contribute to any political cause they choose, without any regulation at all, is to go back to the days when the corporations ran this country for their own interests–and to hell with everybody else. Political contributions have little to do with “free speech” and everything to do with controlling the government that should be regulating them. A corporation is not a group of individuals expressing their opinions in writing or the media–(the type of conduct which is protected by the first amendment.) The very definition of a corporation used to be: “an entity created by a legal fiction that will maximize the profits of it’s investors and subject to different taxation (more favorable) than that imposed on a human being with similar profits”. Such a legal fiction must be regulated or you wind up with trusts, monopolies, and the abridgment of all human rights for those who are not investors and for whom it happens to be profitable to be exploited by such an entity. A corporation owes no fiduciary duty to take into account anyone but it’s shareholders. Not even society as a whole. In fact, a corporation would violate it’s sacred fiduciary duty to it’s investors if it did something which helped humanity but lessened overall profits and would subject them to derivative litigation brought on behalf of the shareholders for diminution of their profits or value of their investments. There is a very good reason why Abraham Lincoln saw the rising corporations in the US just before his assassination as posing the biggest threat to our American Democracy for the future if they remained unregulated. Eisenhower also warned us of the growing power of the military-industrial complex which is but one of the progeny of Corporate America, unregulated.

    I’ve told you before that, like Churchill, I believe regulated capitalism is a terrible form of government, but one that nevertheless just happens to be better than any other you might want to suggest. Unregulated capitalism morphs into economic totalitarianism and is worse than benign socialism where at least no one starves even if no one gets extremely rich. There is certainly nothing sacred about capitalism per se. Unregulated capitalism stands right up their with Fascism as one of the very worst. It is the polar opposite of the Marxism introduced by the Soviets which is also one of the very worst forms of government. Oppressing people and taking away their very right to exist, or have the means to continue to live with sufficient food, clothing , shelter and medicine should never be condoned by our society as an acceptable form of government. It is particularly onerous if the form of government is allowed to do so in the name of “Freedom”, “Democracy”, and “America the Beautiful”.

    Do you really want government completely controlled by the richest corporations in the world? Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich? If that’s your idea of good government, well, the supreme court, in a 5-4 vote, just gave it to you. If you think lobbying has been out of control in the recent past, hold on to your seat. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

    Tony Kennedy should be ashamed of himself! All those right wingers on the court and in Congress need to be impeached if this is the kind of leadership they think will provide us with a government that is good and decent to the very people that it’s supposed to serve.

    From what I’m seeing from the GOP and the Supreme Court, I think our country is doomed to become either a totalitarian state or face revolution in the streets when the real unemployment rate hits 25-30% and stays there.

    We should have the latter by the mid term elections this year. Economic Fascism will follow when Obama is voted out of office by the crazies who think he is evil and shout down all proposed legislation that does not pertain to the war or tax cuts for the rich, “the just scream ‘hell no you socialist Kenyan son of a bitch’ faction of the GOP” come 2012. By then, if the world doesn’t end 6 weeks after the elections (12/21/12) as suggested by the Mayans, Hopis, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, we will be up to our knees in crap and in a global economic disaster. I could even see the crazy screamers in this country electing that nitwit Sarah Palin president if Obama isn’t given a chance to pass any legislation whatsoever. Right now the GOP is screaming down ideas they promoted themselves a short time ago simply because they are now being suggested by Obama.

    Once you get a chance to see that “debate” in it’s entirety you’ll have a better understanding of Obama’s true situation and the incredible bad faith tactics used by the GOPers to bring our form of bipartisan government to it’s very knees. If you choose not to watch it you’ll have a hard time understanding the context from which I sit on these issues at this point.


  15. lawdog says:

    Oops! When I wrote it I didn’t think it had political undertones except in regard to the nature of corporations, lobbying and the first amendment. I’m sorry for portraying Palin and the right wing “tea-bagging” faction of the GOP as being a brick shy of a full load–as that is political dynamite. Forgive me and ignore those portions.

  16. DRomo says:


    I like your take on the Supreme Court ruling but how did that make it on this page. I mean how did free agent talk, Dodgertalk get turned into political talk? C’mon dude.

  17. lawdog says:

    It’s the offseason and I was depressed about where we seem to be heading. I really wasn’t trying to stir the pot, so to speak, but will admit that what I wrote has nothing to do with the Dodgers–unless they have something they want to lobby Congress about.

  18. Roger Dodger says:

    DRomo — lawdog was just offering a moment of thought during the 7th inning stretch.

    But his letter does relate to baseball in this way . . .

    (quote from above letter) “if the world doesn’t end 6 weeks after the elections (12/21/12) as suggested by the Mayans, Hopis, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, we will be up to our knees in crap and in a global economic disaster.”

    If true, that will affect the Dodger January workouts in Dodger Stadium, it will affect the Dodger Camelback workouts, seriously cut into FA & trades that might be in the working. Also, Jamie McCourt (or what ever her new name will be by then) will be angry because her garden party for the 23rd of that month will be be held.

  19. lawdog says:

    Of course! Thanks Roger Dog! That’s what I meant to say! That’s the ticket! That’s my story and I’m sticking with it! ;)

  20. Mark Timmons says:


    The Hacks on the MLB Network who said that know nothing and here’s why:

    1. If Hudson and Wolf declined arbitration, then the Dodgers would get get the first round pick of the team who signed them, as well as a supplemental pick between the first and second round.

    2. If the Brewers signed Wolf, we would have gotten their 1st round pick, which was number 14 overall. (Don’t think for a minute that the Brewers would NOT have been given pause as a small-market team, to give up that pick).

    3. We would have also gotten a supplemental pick which would have been between #33 and #60.

    4. The Number 14 pick last year did not sign and returned to college, but the signing bonus for a #14 pick would probably be about $2 million.

    5. The Supp Picks get very little signing bonus.

    So, the Dodgers could have offered Wolfe AND Hudson Arbitration, but they DID NOT have to sign the draft picks. Can you say Luke Hochvour?

    Aaron Miller was a suppl pick last year and he got $889,000.

    The Dodgers could have also taken a player who was slotted for the 4th round and said, “well take you in the first round if you’ll sign for $175,000…”

    So, it makes absolutely no sense that the Dodgers didn’t offer arbitration to Wolf and Hudson because they didn’t want to pay the picks.

    O-Dog can’t find anyone to take him, without any compensation. Imagine what it would be if he had compensation.

    I think it’s pure and simple – Wolf and Hudson had some (or even a strong) liklihood of accepting arbitration. The Dodgers could have afforded $3 or 4 mil to draft picks. They couldn’t afford $20 mil to two players! They had to prevent that from happening at all costs – thus NO ARBITRATION!

  21. lawdog says:

    Perfectly Cheap is getting enough flack for not offering arbitration which wasn’t truly binding to O-Rod and the Foxster. Can you imagine what kind of brew-ha-ha he would have faced had he drafted “unsignable” prospects or 4th rounders who have agreed to sign for a fraction of what a first rounder gets in order to save the jack? Maybe he doesn’t think any prospect is worth that kind of money up front since so many never become true blue chip players in the majors? That’s probably more likely the reason he didn’t want 5 top picks in the draft, even if only 3 of them were going to be that expensive. And Mover may be right about the fear of getting stuck with 2 10 million dollar contracts. I don’t think he’s smart enough to know that he didn’t have to keep the players under the contract awarded by the arbitrator and the way he signs geezers and wannabes for relatively small amounts tells me that he just wants to cheap out until he can sell the franchise for a bazillion trillion dollars.

    I think O-Rod would be able to sign quickly if he’d agree to an incentive laden one year package again this year like he did last. I think he’s been holding out for a deal more like what he deserves for a .284 hitting gold glove 2nd baseman.

    In fact, me wonders why he hasn’t found some sort of a deal like that yet. Have the Dodgers told every other team on the “que tee” that his wrist is going to break in two before July? It really makes no sense. Why hasn’t O-Rod been offered a decent incentive laden contract? Only an idiot like Perfectly wouldn’t want him under those conditions.

  22. Rory says:

    The hacks at MLB network are probably saying the hacks at LADodgerTalk don’t have a freakin’ clue. Whatever the reasons were for not offering arbitration to those two players, they don’t hold up under scrutiny. It is clearly about money with the Dodgers. We don’t have enough right now, for OBVIOUS reasons. Losing our best pitcher and our Gold Glove All Star second baseman weakened this team. Looking at our team right now, I would be thrilled to have Wolf and Hudson back. I don’t really understand the thinking of those that wouldn’t.

    Romo I guess what I was thinking was what “player” put us over the top. And one thing I just know to be true, no matter what they give lip service to, every player goes where the money is. If we really wanted, and could have afforded Halladay the contract the Phillies did, he would have gladly come to L.A.. Obviously the only free agent pitcher out there that was likely to be a difference maker was Lackey, and he, like so many, was overpaid by Boston. But isn’t it interesting that the rich clubs continue to take the chances. And that ain’t the Dodgers anymore. And I am on record as saying I disagree with you on Hudson. That whole glass thing is bullsh*t as is evidenced by the number of games and the number at bats he had last year. And no way Hudson gets $10 million in arbitration. I think we could have won that case, by offering what he ended up making with incentives last year.

    Once again, well said ldog. You know I agree with you, and you also know that anything other than talk of how great the Dodgers are will not be tolerated on this site.

  23. lawdog says:

    I know I shouldn’t post anything not related in some fashion to the Dodgers but sometimes I can’t help myself. This issue I thought would be benign enough since it deals with the interpretation of the first amendment and really doesn’t involve the personalities of the political players–which is usually where you get into the angry dog fights amongst people at the polar ends of the political spectrum.

    And I would be interested in polling our site to see how many agree with my analysis as opposed to the analysis of my good friend (and conservative) professor from Univ. of Calif at SC.

    The supreme court decision is particularly rankling to me because Tony Kennedy was the swing vote on the court and he was my Con Law professor back in the 70s when I was in law school. He was very moderate in his views as a prof.

    But once the Elder Bush appointed him to the bench, he’s usually voted with the right wing of the bench. This is the biggest and most important case to come down since Tony wrote the majority opinion in Bush vs. Gore which determined not to count the votes in Florida and award the presidency to George Bush (by the same 5-4 vote.)

  24. Casual Observer says:

    Aren’t newspapers and tv networks corporations? Where is the complaint about these organizations and the affect they have on political fortunes? If one corporation has the ability to influence politics then all corporations should have equal rights to influence politics. I apologize for adding the common sense approach to this arguments, carry on, LD, however maybe you can enlighten all of us as to why some corporations are allowed freebie shot on subjects and other organizations should be restricted? Don’t try and even make the argument that news and tv are special corporations, they ain’t, they are in business to make money, period!

  25. Mark Timmons says:

    The Dodgers paid over $2 mil to their first round picks last year. Think about it! Was it the $2 mil or the STRONG possibility of $20 that kept them from doing it?

    I think if you have a pre-conceived idea that McCourt is a bad owner, then you are going to WANT to believe it. You can want to believe it all day, but in the end, it doesn’t make it true.

    As a small market team, I am willing to bet that Milwaukee wouldn’t have given up the #14 pick for Randy “Freakin’” Wolf. Then, who would have offered him 3 years?

    I think Ned was bidding against himself last year on O-Dog. Here’s the deal: Wolf and Hudson aren’t worth what they could have gotten. Some people may feel that we aren’t as good aws last year. I say “WAIT AND SEE!”

    You guys make Hudson and Wolf out to be Ruth and Koufax!

  26. Roger Dodger says:

    Mark, now you are getting to the real reason last year ended in a bust. The Dodger’s #1 pitcher is really a #4 pitcher and the Dodgers could not match up against other serious clubs. Wolf should not have been the man then — nor in 2010.

    And we are still behind moving into 2010 with this weak pitching staff. But heck 2012 is close and it will all end anyhow.

  27. DRomo says:

    Mark I have said this for years: The McCourts are paying for the sins of the FOX Regime!! The FOX era alienated so many Dodgerfans and baseball fans in general. Many folks jumped ship. The angry Dodger fans and media members have targeted Frank MccOurt since day one. Sure he is far from a perfect owner but no one can complain or argue the sucess he has had as an owner. Since 2004 we have won 3 divisions 1 wild card birth and have been in the NLCS 2 years running. He brought the Spring training home closer to the fan base, on & on. But we focus on the negative. And I know there are plenty of negatives if you chosoe to go there. Whatever! Scoreboard!! He has been successful. The team is better than when he bought it. Scoreboard!! The grass is always green on the other side, but If you guys think it happens overnight you are dreaming.

    A few years ago we all pined for teh Garvey, Lopes, Russell, & Cey days when we brought up and kept our own talent and competed and won. FYI Garvey Cey Lopes and Russell lost more than twice in the NLCS! Well the latest young studs are here and all you here is go sign free agent A, B & C! Some folks are just never happy!

  28. Bill Russell says:


  29. Roger Dodger says:

    DRomo, agree with you above, but most Dodger fans see the team climbing a ladder to the top — and now near the top — ownership problems (marriage) seems to have put themselves in a difficult situation so that money is strapped, and, and, and — cannot move the team up they, because they are up there.

  30. Rory says:

    You guys make Hudson and Wolf out to be Ruth and Koufax!

    And you make them out to be Jamey Carroll and Fausto Camona.

    I say Hudson gets 590 PA, hits .284, scores 70, knocks in 75 and is in the running for his 5th Gold Glove. Carroll/DeWitt doesn’t come close to any of those accomplishments. I say Randy Wolf pitches 190 innings, wins 12 games with an ERA of 4. Vicente Padilla, or whoever it is that takes Wolf’s spot, does none of that. If we offer Hudson a contract, with the promise the 2b job is his all year, he takes it and we avoid arbitration. I think the same thing is true of Wolf and if either of these cases go to arbitration, as long as our offer is reasonable – we win. Just take a look at the history of arbitration, owners win 60% of the time. If we decide to go different directions with those two positions, and move to improve them, I am fine with the plan. But to not offer arbitration is a move that I still don’t get. And, most of the sites I have been to, and most of the baseball experts that I have read, agree with me.

    Getting Fox out of there was a great thing for the Dodgers. Fox sucks. But I sure wish we would have landed an owner that was more financially stable. The McCourt’s world is coming apart and it is affecting the team on the field. I never really liked him, and some of it was for personal reasons – he is a Richie Rich parking lot attendant from Boston who was turned down by three other franchises. Had to be a reason for that. I was hoping a wealthy local guy, or group, would get the Dodgers (Broad was my choice) and now we have all of this uncertainty. I still maintain that the Dodgers had the money and the system and were going to be good no matter who bought them, and getting Manny handed to us for free put us over the top for two years. Remember, the Dodgers struggled some for a couple of years. We have had 3 managers and complete 180 of philosophy in GM’s with McConfused running the show.

    And now we are cash strapped. Some of us said it was going to get ugly and it has. We still have a decent team, but no way is a Championship roster. No way.

  31. Rory says:

    And Casual, it is my opinion, and I would think MOST of America’s opinion, that campaign finance reform is a must. Even the ultra conservative John McCain agrees with that. We need to reduce the number of lobbyists in Washington, not increase them. This decision by the right wing Supreme Court is absolutely horrible. Money buys elections and these guys just assured us that the voice of the people will be drowned out by the voice of large corporations. Sad day in the United States.


  1. [...] View full post on – Get Your Daily Dodger Juice, Dodger News and Dodger Rumors [...]

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading