Categorized | Mark Timmons

Blind, Crippled & Crazy

Blind, Crippled & Crazy

I could have called it The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, or maybe The Good, The Fat and The Ugly would have been more appropriate.

Casey Blake, Jay Gibbons and Juan Uribe are all suffering from some sort of physical malady.  I’ll leave it to you to decide who’s who…

I considered having that same laser surgery, but I too was fearful that I would be unable to recognize that 81 MPH curve after that 98 MPH fastball.  Yeah, I’m glad I held off…  Gibbons and Blake are both candidates to start the season on the DL.  Uribe will have a liposuction procedure done today and he should be good to go (sarcasm intended).

The Dodgers are now 5-15.  For the mathematically challenged, that simply means that for every game they have won, they have lost three.

No biggie.  They will make it up on volume!  Oh, wait!

I can’t reduce 20 games to a microcosm of what’s wrong, and let’s be calm, but WHAT’S WRONG?

There were some highlights (lowlights too):

  • Scott Elbert pitched an inning and only walked two.  What a trooper!
  • John Lindsey, Damaso Espino, Jamie Hoffmann, Trayvon Robinson, Carlos Monasterios, Wilkin De La Rosa, Dee Gordon,  and Javy Guerra were all sent to minor league camp.  It’s a start – there needs to be another eight today.
  • I think X. Paul is still in the running to make the roster.
  • I also think that right about now would be an excellent time to get Mike Young.  There are so many possibilities on that that I won’t predict who could be involved.  I just think it needs to happen.  Texas will eat half his salary (I think).
  • John Ely still has a 2.70 ERA.
  • I’ll be out there Saturday!

 

 

About Mark Timmons

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

29 Responses to “Blind, Crippled & Crazy”

  1. Michael says:

    I’m thinking that it would not be a good idea to acquire Young, especially at the cost of TOP prospects. Reminds me too much about who would be our catcher today if he wasn’t traded for a similar commodity, an aging infielder.
    Even if they say, we’ll pay half his salary, that’s 50% off,it’s No Deal. Don’t do it Ned.
    I’m not hip to todays pro atheletes and their demands for trades mid-contract. Fullfill your contract and when you become a FA then you can have a say for whom and where you will play.

  2. Mark_Timmons says:

    Michael,

    Are you talking about that Cleveland Catcher who is hitting .167?

    ;)

    Also, I think Texas would want to eat half his contract. It saves them money.

  3. Mark_Timmons says:

    Also, barring a late flop, Andy LaRoche is about to win the job as starting 3B for Oakland.

  4. Bill Russell says:

    So Miles or Carrol opens up as a starter on the infield in place of the aging Casey. That sounds like a better number 2 hitter to me anyway. I would love to see X Paul get the call as the 4th outfielder and stay with the team. Gibbons? I just don’t know what to say other than I hope he likes New Mexico. His glasses will look sporty over there.

    I guess we have a few more weeks before we must decide on a 5th starter. Let’s hope someone steps forward. Where are the Oritz twins these days? Maybe Ned can pull a rabbit out of his hat on the wavier wire. It appears no one wants the job.

    It looks like Elbert has been working on his mechanics with J-Brox, what a disappointment this spring.

    As for Micheal Young, Sorry Mark but I’m with our Micheal on this one. We don’t need another aging over paid infielder that would drain the farm.

  5. Bill Russell says:

    I can’t spell Michael.

  6. Bill Russell says:

    I’ll be at Camelback on Friday. Chi Sox against Andy LaRoche’s Oakland A’s. There’s some kind of Chicago fest after the game. They must be selling pizza.

  7. Roger Dodger says:

    Back in the winter, as Dodger fans looked at the possible lineup on PAPER — the pitching looked great, and the starting eight looked okay.

    Now — injuries have hurt both in pitching and the eight starters.

    I like Michael Young. .300 lifetime hitter in the major leagues, I will take that. Heck I would take Young and dump Blake. Blake has never hit .300 or more in any of his full seasons. Young has hit .300 or more 6 times. Once he led the AL with .331. Last season he hit 21 HR and 91 RBIs. He could play SS, 2B, and 3B. And as Mark loves to say, “He is a great clubhouse guy.”

  8. Bill Russell says:

    Here’s some questions to ask yourself while trading for M Young

    Would we be a better team with Young? YES

    Is that our missing piece to the 2011 puzzle? NO

    Does the Dodgers have extra money laying around? NO

    If you don’t have money, would it cost some pretty good youngsters? YES

    Would it be a good idea to get Young during his declining years? Maybe – He’s 34, same age as Casey Blake when we got him. That worked for awhile. All players are not alike

    Would it prevent us from getting a power hitting 1st baseman in 2012? Probably

    Where do we dump off Casey Blake?

  9. Jae says:

    They shoot horses, don’t they? Just shoot Casey.

  10. Roger Dodger says:

    Billy, here is my question.

    It is the 8th inning, Dodgers down by a run, with runners on 2nd and 3rd, two out: who do I want at the plate between Casey Blake or Michael Young?

    I want Young.

    Dodgers were 80 and 82. Some here are talking that the Dodgers will win 12 to 15 more games in 2011. Fact: they will win 80 for sure, it is that extra 12 to 15 more games that have to be made up.

    With even the terrible season last year — starting pitching should make up 5 or 6. The pen maybe 3 or 4. The rest is hitting. And I believe right now the Dodgers have too many weak spots in the order: C, 3b, LF, and even SS. And we have yet to see just what K, E, & L will do. Second should be OK.

    No more close in 2011. But want the whole taco.

  11. RogerCraig says:

    Let’s win like in 1988. I want to see one more before I die.

  12. the truth hurts says:

    I think it is going to be a long season, I give us 85 wins this year…….

    pitching is ailing and I dont think kershy or bills gets the run support….

    that could change come the trade deadline however…

  13. Bobby says:

    i think a more consistent bills, and 2009 versions of kemp ethier loney give us more than 85 wins (5 more than last year).

    we’re not great, but i do think we could be really good.

    i do agree that we have some ammo for a big traded deadline acquisition.

    maybe a big 1b by july, and sands in LF by late may?

  14. Bootz says:

    Rangers are looking for an experianced closer. Hey, he has exoeriance, they didn’t say he had to be good.

    The Rangers can also send over 20 Mil of Youngs salary which leaves 18 mil for the dodgers to pay. 6 mil cap for 3 years.

    And Casey? Maybe he can go get his GED or something.

  15. Michael says:

    I too originally thought Young may be a good fit but this article from MSTI changed my mind; The “Michael Young is unhappy in Texas” story has been going on for quite some time, both in recent years when he asked for a trade after being moved from shortstop to third base, and again now that the Rangers have signed Adrian Beltre and pushed Young to designated hitter. This saga would generally have little interest to me, except that every time the story comes up, the Dodgers are mentioned as a possible trade partner, though the Rockies are generally seen as the favorites.

    T.R. Sullivan’s MLB.com article from Sunday brings the Dodgers up again:

    The Athletics, Angels and Blue Jays have all been mentioned as possibilities. The Dodgers are interested, but are prevented by their unstable ownership situation. Most reliable sources say teams are interested and the Rangers are willing to talk, but nothing is imminent at this point with the Rockies or any other team.

    Young is owed $48m over the next three seasons, and so I think Sullivan is completely accurate: there’s almost no way the Dodgers can shoehorn that into their payroll as we currently understand it, which is already at somewhere around $110m for 2011. So let’s be clear that we’re talking about a hypothetical situation which is almost certainly not going to happen. But the issue here isn’t whether it’d really happen or not; the issue is that (according to Sullivan, anyway), the Dodgers appear to have interest, enough so that Steve Dilbeck is addressing it in his LA Times blog. Is this a situation where the McCourt divorce debacle might save the Dodgers from the chance of making a big mistake?

    I’ve seen fans, both here and elsewhere, who would love for this to happen, because they think he’s an upgrade over Casey Blake, which could then push Blake into being the bench bat he probably ought to be. Yeah! Wait, no, and I don’t even like Casey Blake. This is a great example of why raw numbers are not always what they seem. First off, let’s just acknowledge that there are plenty of people out there who see that Young had 91 RBI (Blake had 67) and four more homers (in 147 more PA) and think that makes him some sort of “run producer”. It doesn’t.

    No, despite outproducing Blake in OPS last year (.774 to .727), both bWAR and fWAR (which don’t always align) agree that Blake was the more valuable player than Young in 2010. bWAR has it 3.1 to 2.7, while fWAR calls it a 2.8 to 2.7 decision. I’m not going to pretend that WAR is exact enough that 0.1 is much of an edge, but note again that WAR is a counting stat, not a rate stat, and therefore the 147 more PA allowed Young more time to compile that total.

    Young lags behind Blake for two primary reasons. First, despite his perception as a plus defender (he won the AL Gold Glove as a shortstop in 2008), Young’s reputation far outshines the metrics. Fangraphs has him as a negative fielder in 8 of his 10 full seasons, while Blake has been solidly above average in each of his years with the Dodgers. If that doesn’t make Young a better third baseman than Blake, it’s hard to think that as he enters his mid 30s, Young could still transition back to the more difficult middle infield positions.

    The other problem for Young is that he’s been helped in a large way by his home field in Texas. Over his career, the split is massive; .322/.372/.487 (.859) at home, but just .279/.322/.411 (.733) on the road. That’s 126 points of OPS lost on the road, and the split didn’t get any better in 2010: .307/.361/.509 (.871) at home, .260/.299/.380 (.679) everywhere else. That’s a nearly 200 point difference, and you’ll excuse me by not being excited by the prospect of having a guy who got on base at a .299 clip away from his home field last year being imported into Dodger Stadium.

    You’ve heard me talk about how I think Blake is at the end of the line in the past, but I’m having a hard time seeing how Young would be any sort of upgrade – and that’s without even considering that Young is due $16m in each of the next three seasons, while 2011 is likely Blake’s last season in blue, or that the Rangers would want some sort of talent in return. It just doesn’t make sense.

    For the record, this isn’t the first time this has come up. In the offseason of 2008-09, we started hearing similar rumors, after the Rangers wanted to move him to third base to accomodate Elvis Andrus. Young went on to have a career year in 2009, which was of course completely unsustainable and which he did not repeat in 2010. Here’s what I said at the time:

    The Texas shortstop has requested a trade after the Rangers *gasp* asked him to move to third base. Hey, good luck with that, guy. You’re going to be 32, on a four-year slide in OPS+ (131, 108, 107, and 96), immensely helped by your home park, and about to start a ridiculous $60 million contract extension. Not only that, you’re an overrated defensive shortstop (Gold Glove be damned, FanGraphs actually has him at a negative rating) and your reputation is taking a hit because of your balking at this request to help your team. I particularly like this quote from an unnamed GM in today’s Buster Olney blog:

    “Put it this way,” one GM said. “If the Rangers offered up Michael Young for free — with that contract, I don’t think there would be any takers.”

    What does this have to do with the Dodgers? Because, of course, they keep popping up on the list of Young’s possible suitors after he said he’d move to second base in order to faciliate a trade. You know what? Forget the home park helping his stats, and forget the immense contract. Just look at the lines:

    22 year old, “overmatched” rookie Blake DeWitt: .264/.344/.383
    31 year old, All-Star super veteran Michael Young: .284/.339/.402

    Look at that. DeWitt actually had a better OBP and a competitive SLG, and that’s including the two solid months he was completely awful that led to his demotion. If Michael Young could only just barely outperform DeWitt while playing in Texas, why would we want to have him at another year older and not playing in that bandbox? Not to mention, the extra $60 million. So, no thanks. Enjoy Texas, Michael.

  16. Michael says:

    Sorry about that. I was going for a link and not the whole article. Self taught on the computer. When I was in school computers were the size of school buses.

  17. Bobby says:

    damn michael. good writeup! ok, now i dont want young either!!

    is it me, or does today’s lineup look like what opening day will look like?!!!

    furcal
    idj
    ethier
    kemp
    uribe
    loney
    barajas
    gwynn
    kershaw

  18. Bill Russell says:

    Roger, would ya trade Sands and T-Rob for Michael Young and 8 mil per year? You can get the whole enchilada and a taco.

  19. Roger Dodger says:

    Billy, yeah, and throw in Gordon and three cracked bats.

    Really, i do not know what the Rangers need, but there is talk that the Angels and A’s will finish higher than the Rangers. So, maybe they need some pitching, and the Dodgers could offer Broxton and a minor leaguer for Young and one of their minor leaguers.

    Bottom line for me, the Dodgers are weak right now in several areas, with Furcal near the first aid station.

  20. Bill Russell says:

    I hear you Roger Well we got the win today

  21. Michael says:

    The Rangers are looking for an established closer now that Feliz is up for the switch to a SP.
    If the Rangers ate half of Youngs salary a swap for Broxton would only leave us on the hook for a million this season but in May when he becomes a 10 and 5 give he can veto any trade so we wouldn’t want that albatross around our neck for the remainder of his contract.
    How about Brox for Nelson Cruz?

  22. Bluenose Dodger says:

    We are talking about the Cleveland catcher who is hitting .286.

  23. Jon L. says:

    I don’t think the Dodgers should rely on Jay Gibbons. The guys hasn’t had a productive season since he was with the Orioles and then he got busted for performance enhancing drugs.

    • Michael says:

      That’s a good point Jon and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with you.
      The Dodgers are taking the day off tomorrow so Bill, Mark and Roger can pack and begin their arrivals in Glendale for our very own in-depth analysis. I want pictures.

      Happy Trails

  24. Mark_Timmons says:

    Michael,

    I just read your post on Mike Young. I give up. I will never mention him again. You have successfully overwhelmed me.

    I give.

    I give.

  25. Mark_Timmons says:

    What if the Dodgers trade J-Brox for Mike Young if the Rangers pay $20 mil of his salary?

    :)

  26. Bill Russell says:

    Then I’m in. Can we throw in Casey?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading