Looking back on this offseason, things did not go well. Some (hopefully the new owner) needs to kick Ned out the door before he can do any more damage to the team. During the 2011 season the Dodgers were the third oldest team National league team averaging 29.8 years per player. Something hard to imagin when a few years ago in 2008 the promotions kept talking about the "young guns" and the wealth of talent under 30 avaiable (i.e. Kemp, Either, Loney, Kershaw, Billingsley, Martin, Kuo). At that time the Dodgers were the 7th youngest National League team and looked like they could only get better. Here we are 4 years later, with a few guns gone, and the team keeps getting older. Using the 25 man roster set up on TrueBlueLA the Dodgers of 2012 will average 30.4 years per player. Even worse most of these players are locked up for 2 years, so the team will continue it trend towards becoming gray into the 2013 season as well.
Looking at this information, you're most likly thinking that I'm about to go into a big rant about Ned having his head up his ass, or how he wants to use a time machine and go back to 2005 when these players were good, or even maybe he felt bad for all the vetrans who were going to be let go in the bad economy and he just wanted to charity them a finacial furture. All in all I'm not going to say any more about it, because frankly my desk is bloody and about to break from my head hitting it. So it could be the concussion that I've given myself talking, but I'm gonna have a fun little juant into fantasy land, and build myself a better team in my head.
For this exercise in futility I'm only going to use free agents, and will only touch the batting and fielding side of the problem for now.
For next season the Dodgers will be losing 4 relevent bats from the roster, Barajas, Carrol, Miles, and Blake. To fill those spots, Mark Ellis, Adam Kennedy, and Jerry Hairston Jr have been signed to join the team, as well as AJ Ellis is finally getting his first chance at being the main catcher. The other signing was bringing back Juan Rivera to block Jerry Sands (Thank you Ned). We'll start off with the one decent offensive signing this year (the rest are just offensive), which would be Jerry Hairston Jr. A true utility player who can play solid defense at any spot on the infield and outfield, look for him to be a Jamey Carrol 2.0 with not as good an OBP, but more pop. I can also get behind the Dodgers finally letting AJ Ellis get a shot at the majors. While Ellis has been know as a defensive specialist, he has a secret power: he get's on base. In the minors Ellis held over a 400 OBP for his career. And guess who had the best OBP of any catcher with more than 100 PA, that's right! AJ Ellis with a phenomenal 392 OBP. So why am I so high on AJ Ellis despite him being a light hitting catcher. Well, unless you hit home runs during every At Bat, then someone needs to be on base in front in order for a run to score. AJ is that man on base. So in summary, "Do I care how he gets on base?" looks over at imaginary Jonah Hill, and Jonah responds "No he does not".
Alright on to disagreements. First order of business is Juan Rivera. Yes, it was great when you were picked up near the end of the year from being dropped and provided a boost of offense, but are you worth 4 million, sorry no. Especially when it becomes 4 million being paid to esential block Jerry Sands from playing. Looking at thier numbers, Rivera had a 333 OBP and 406 SLG for a 740 OPS for the Dodgers last season while Sands had a 338 OBP and 389 SLG for a 727 OPS. Not a lot of difference between those lines, plus Sands is nearly 10 years younger, plays better defense with a better arm, and can improve on last season's stats. Rivera on the other hand, is over the hill and will be lucky to be within 50 points of his stats. So Rivera get's cut, and guess what Ned, I just saved you 4 million on payroll.
Next, assuming Kennedy and Ellis are never signed, (wow that's another 9.5 million over 2 years or 13.5 million total over 2) left handed and right handed bench bats are needed as well as the every day second baseman. Here's where things get interesting, if I had my way I would drop Uribe from the lineup entirely to have him sit in the club house (He doesn't even deserve to sit on the bench), and occasionaly be allowed out to fan Kershaw on the bench, but the Dodgers wouldn't stand paying 8 million for someone to do nothing. So instead I turn to Justin Sellers, whose glove is just as good as Ellis's is, plus he's 8 years younger, and could be a potential plus with his batting. Basically, if you're going to have an offesive black hole at second, why not play the black hole that cost 400k (plus he may develope some offensive value) rather than the one that is costing nearly 9 mil over 2 years. Now for the bench bats I would propose picking up Wilson Betemit (he signed for 3.25 over 2, so we'll say 3.5 over 2 to get him, and subracting that we still save 10 million) and Brooks Conrad (he signed a minor league contract, so I'll say 800k major league contract would get him). Now you must be thinking, that I'm crazy, to grab two switch hitters, both who have never hit more than 20 HRs for bench bats. But here's the fun part, I'd only be paying them to hit from one side each. Conrad, most notable from his 3 errors during the playoffs in 2010 destroys lefties to the tune of 358 OBP, and 465 SLG for an OPS of 863, and Betemit rakes righties with a 347 OBP, 470 SLG for an OPS of 817. Also both have positional flexibilty to take over at second base or third, allowing for them not just to only pinch hitters, but role players as well. While Conrad and Betemit are not spring chickens they are younger than Kennedy and Mark Ellis, and bring the average age of the 25 man roster down to 29.7, making the Dodgers younger than they were last year. So in summary Blake, Barajas, Carrol, Miles and Rivera put together a line of 324 OBP, 375 SLG for an OPS of 699. My setup of Betemit, Conrad, Ellis, Hairston, Sands, and Sellers is worth 338 OBP, 381 SLG for an OPS of 719 for 9 million less. Which is worth more to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment