Colletti On The Dodgers’ Offseason Plans

Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti looked ahead to the 2012 season and discussed some of his winter priorities with's Ken Gurnick.  The highlights….

  • Colletti said the team won't undergo any major changes, noting that the Dodgers can contend as long as the offense is consistent.  Indeed, L.A. is 30-21 since the All-Star break, with Juan Rivera providing the club with an offensive spark.
  • Colletti hasn't yet discussed next year's payroll with owner Frank McCourt, which the GM noted is "not unusual" given that it's still in early September.  
  • "Up there in the top echelon of priorities" is signing Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier to multiyear extensions.  We heard earlier today from Dave Stewart, Kemp's agent, that the Dodgers hadn't yet broached the subject of a long-term deal with his client.
  • Clayton Kershaw could also be an extension candidate but, as Colletti said, "it's less a priority for somebody with three years of arbitration."  Kershaw is due for a big pay raise this winter as he enters the arbitration process for the first time.
  • If Hiroki Kuroda doesn't return to Japan, Colletti said the Dodgers would be interested in bringing the right-hander back to Los Angeles.
  • James Loney's recent hot streak is "more indicative of him and how he's hit the rest of his career," said Colletti.  Loney has long been considered a non-tender candidate this winter since he's due a raise to around $6MM through arbitration and has a .711 OPS on the season, though he has a .382/.450/.629 line over his last 27 games.
  • "It's never been easy to build through free agency and I really don't like to do it," Colletti said.  "We do it when pressed, when we don't have a player coming through the system or on the Major League roster, but it's always more precarious than developing or trading."  That said, the GM didn't totally rule out the prospect of signing a big-hitting free agent like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder.

37 Responses to Colletti On The Dodgers’ Offseason Plans Leave a Reply

  1. Lunchbox45 4 years ago

    Question: Is Kershaw the best young starter of all time?

    • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

      Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez… I’d say it’s a long debate.

      • vtadave 4 years ago

        Heh…Johnson had a 1.36 ERA in 370 innings as a 22 year-old.

      • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

        Johnson was from a completely different Era, I should have said modern day.

        Maddux was good at a young age, pedro didn’t really hit his stride until he was 25.

        Doc Gooden’s 2nd year in the bigs was pretty remarkable, but Kershaw isn’t that far off. 

        • BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

          Uh what? Kershaw is not that far off? By the stats I’ve seen Kershaw isn’t even close to how dominating Gooden was in his 2nd season. Gooden’s WAR was nearly double what Kershaw’s is, and Gooden put up 276 IP a number Kershaw won’t come close to touching this year. Also Gooden’s ERA+ was 70 points higher.

          • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

             it’s called context. try applying some.

          • BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

            Ok then, give me the context you’re using because I gave you stats to back up my stance on Gooden vs Kershaw. Look I’m not saying The Claw is not great, he is. I’m making the point that Gooden’s sophmore season isn’t exactly a good comp.

          • craigbhill 4 years ago

            Part of ‘context’ is how a player is doing in his time, not someone else’s.  Kershaw might have had the makeup TO be as overwhelming as Walter Johnson was in HIS day.  But it’s just babbling, no one knows and no one can decide.  The context of the time is the only real yardstick.  For example, Ruth is denounced in some quarters because he faced blacks only while barnstorming—and they got him out then more than he was gotten out in the AL.  But in context, he led the league in HR while he was PITCHING, i kid you not.  Barry Bonds and Willie Mays think that’s nothing, but i’ve never seen Mays’ World Series PITCHING records which stood for decades.  In context, vs his peers, he was the most unusually gifted player of all time.   

          • BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

            The context of time makes sense when comparing as you said Bonds vs Ruth or Walter vs Kershaw because just about everything from the gloves, balls and bats down to even that some rules are different now. But in the 26 years between Gooden’s season and Kershaw’s there hasn’t been those types of changes in the enviroment to account for the vast gap between the numbers. Even the league offensive and pitching numbers are very close to each other. My point is Kershaw’s numbers for his sophmore season are very close to those of Lincecum or Lester, but while its a great season, it is not a legendary season.

          • craigbhill 4 years ago

            You don’t get what i meant.  They cannot be compared BECAUSE THEY CAN’T PLAY AGAINST EACH OTHER.  The results of even 5 yrs ago, steeped as it was in the final throes of steroids, cannot be compared to now.  Gooden’s time was steeped in AMPHETAMINES, which keep everyone, pitchers included, in crackerjack condition.  Kershaw is playing today in different conditions.  he can’t play against anyone other than he can play against.  He is one of the best OF HIS TIME.  That’s all anyone CAN be measured against:  Those he played.  And, like the greats of the past, he passes that ‘greatness’ test.  Any other discussion is literally fantasy. 

          • BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

            Perhaps you’re not understanding what I’m saying, in my initial argument the numbers I used compared their stats against the players of their time. Gooden put up numbers against the players of his time that were light years ahead of the avergage while he was 8 years younger than the league. Kershaw’s a merely miles ahead of his competition and he is 3 years older than Gooden was. Comparing the offensive eras they played in is merely to show that the offensive number of their respective leagues are very similar. Yes I know Gooden’s time was full of amphetamines but Kershaw also has trainers and doctors that outclass those of of Gooden’s time. This isn’t comparing 2 seasons that the pitchers were nearly as dominant against their respective leagues, this is comparing 2 seasons that there is a vast divide between the two.

          • craigbhill 4 years ago

            I don’t talk fantasy baseball; you like to.  These comparisons are meaningless, for the reason mentioned.  But add to it the fact that Koufax was no Gooden during his first 5 years; but Gooden was no Koufax over his career.  Comparing pitchers at a certain point, and then extrapolating that into something meaningful, is fanciful, and meaning-less.

            Asked and answered three times now.  Enough already.  You have your opinion, which is all it is, and i have mine.  The only difference is yours is wrong.

          • BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

            Says the guy who is ready to crown a 2nd year player a great player, one of the best of his time. No matter how good this season is for Kershaw, one season doesn’t make a career. Come back to me in 15 years when he is in the final years of his career and then we’ll decide if he is one of the best of his time. Maybe by then your disease will be cured so you can understand another persons’ opinion and how wrong yours is.

          • John DiRienzo 4 years ago

            i wasn’t aware WAR and ERA+ didn’t account for context. blanket statement

      • CoachBlume 4 years ago

        It’s definitely a long debate. The other thing that you could argue is that no one was concerned with pitch counts really up until the last ten years. Also 5 man rotations weren’t common in the early days. But if you’re talking about greatest young pitchers of all time, it’s really hard not to include Babe Ruth. When he was 20, he was 18-8 with a 2.44 era. He made $3500 that year. He also had 92 ab’s and hit for a .315 clip. with 4 dingers. At 21 he was 23-12 with a 1.75 era and at 22 he was 24-13 with a 2.01 era. That is an era average in those 3 years of 2.066. Now that is impressive. In the 3rd year I speak of, 1917, he made $5000. He also hit .325 that year. You can argue that he was truly the greatest player of all time. His pitching stats often get over-looked because he was such a good hitter. He was an amazing pitcher as well.  

    • At age 23 you’d have to say he should be considered the “Pitcher You Would Most Like To Have” on your roster. Three more years under club control, Cy Young candidate who still hasn’t reached his potential. I’d take Kershaw over just about anybody.

  2. vtadave 4 years ago

    No major changes.

    Extension not a priority for Kershaw.

    No talk about a Kemp extension with his agent.


    • BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

      I would actually prefer these talks to be delayed for as long as possible, the reason being pretty freaking obvious.

  3. “That said, the GM didn’t totally rule out the prospect of signing a big-hitting free agent like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder.”   LMFAO!!!! Somebody please slap this bit*h!!!!! Can’t take it any more!!!!

  4. “We do it when pressed, when we don’t have a player coming through the system…”

    Ned, you never have a player coming through the system because you trade them all for nothing.  I hate you. 

  5. monkeydung 4 years ago

    The Dodgers make a little bit of sense for Fielder:

    He won’t go to the Yankees, Red Sox, or Phillies as they are all set 1B. The Mets will likely give Ike a shot to keep getting better. The Angels have a 1B who will win ROY this year. The Giants have zero offense, even with Beltran and Posey, Fielder still comes in with the pressure of being the best hitter on the team. The only other teams that I see contending money wise are the Cards (if they don’t get Pujols back) or the Cubs, and I don’t think the Cubs can contend next year.

    I know there is that whole thing about actually finding money to pay him, but I can dream of this line up, which to me is pretty damn solid.

    1B Fielder
    2B Uribe
    SS Gordon
    3B TBD
    C Ellis/Frederwitz
    LF Rivera/Sands
    CF Kemp
    RF Ethier

    a 3-6 of Kemp, Fielder, Ethier, Rivera is pretty solid.

    Besides, is there a better place in the world for a famous millionaire vegan to live than Los Angeles?

  6. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    The alternative being? (Always nice to talk in the abstract, but eventually reality has to be considered.)

  7. BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

    I’m not up to date on Dodgers prospects, but do they have anybody worth bringing up in the minors for 1B? Loney has been pretty bad at the plate and his defense almost brings him back down to replacement level in terms of WAR. Or maybe they non-tender him a contract and bring him back on a FA deal so he’s not earning 4+ million.

  8. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    Before somebody says Jerry Sands, he’d have to be converted to a first baseman and he has been underwhelming with the bat in his major league debut so far. I don’t do WAR so I will point to Loney’s line this year of .279/.329/.391/.721, which is hardly terrible, especially considering his awful first four months. If management believes he’s getting back to where he was in his first three seasons I don’t see where they find a better option without spending very big in the free agent market, and we all know how likely that is. The Dodgers are also looking at a rookie at short next season, probably Dee Gordon, so a good veteran glove at first will be very useful. As for the money, I’ll let management figure that out. Strictly in baseball terms, I’d give Loney a better than even chance of coming back next year, assuming his resurgence continues for a few more weeks.

  9. BlackDahliaMurder24 4 years ago

    Yeah, if the alternative is moving Sands to 1B it might be better to stick with Loney since the Dodgers don’t figure to be able to sign a Fielder or Pujols. It’s not that Loney is terrible, just that most of his numbers speak to him being just barely above replacement level.

  10. craigbhill 4 years ago

    Considering the likelihood of ejecting McCourt looks low, at least by the time the trade season starts, i think it’s safe to say the Dodgers will not offer either Fielder or Pujols a penny.  Ergo, if that is the case, Loney is staying.

  11. thegrayrace 4 years ago

    Loney’s OPS has been among the bottom four regular starting 1B in MLB for 4 straight seasons… he hasn’t been a decent offensive 1B since 2007.

    Beyond time to move on. There will be better options aside from Pujols and Fielder, even at the $6m range that James Loney makes.

  12. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    Yeah, better options like Adam LaRoche. Too bad the Dodgers didn’t sign him. That’s what I was hearing last offseason anyway. The grass sure is greener over the septic tank.

  13. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    A very intelligent rebuttal. I am ashamed to have even posed the question.

  14. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    I have never understood this “for a first baseman” reasoning. First base is where many teams (especially NL teams) stash defensive liabilities, but that does not mean that the position is reserved for one-demensional power hitters. In his first few years Loney was an RBI machine. Even without a lot of power he hit plenty of line drives and drove in lots of runs. He also gets on base. A team can get power from anywhere in the lineup. In addition to free-swinging power hitters, a balanced team needs contact hitters and OBP men. I also like first baseman who can actually field, but maybe that’s just me.

    And there you go again: only Loney’s slump counts. We’re not allowed to consider when he comes to life again. Team management can’t afford that kind of logic. This offseason they will have to consider whether Loney has returned to earlier form and what are the actual alternatives if they don’t bring him back.

  15. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    You didn’t read anything I wrote, did you?

  16. aprilglaspie 4 years ago

    I’m on board with that reasoning BlueSky. Loney is not a good fielder, he’s excellent. And unlike a lot of 1B that clog the basepaths. Loney can motor fairly well.

  17. craigbhill 4 years ago

    No thanks (LaRoche).

  18. thegrayrace 4 years ago

    Did you also hear the suggestions of signing Lance Berkman or Carlos Pena? Because those were options that I was putting forward last offseason.

  19. BlueSkyLA 4 years ago

    I wasn’t one of the people hoping the Dodgers released Loney and signed LaRoche last offseason, but plenty around here were in that corner.

  20. craigbhill 4 years ago

    LaRoche is a journeyman who will never stick with a team because he only shows you just so much.  If we’re gonna get rid of Loney, it had better be for someone better than a temp.  With his age and his back, Pujols is not worth the investment.  Let the Cubs duke it out with the Cards and may the winner waste $150 million.  Fielder has a higher ceiling at this point tho i’ve never liked his strikeouts, but since it looks like McCourt will unfortunately still be alive into 2012, the discussion Fielder may be wearing Dodger blue is not worth having.  Loney is probably going to stick, one more year.

    The one who drives me crazy is Donald Baseball aka Mattingly.  He is TERRIBLE.  He makes the Dodgers look more mediocre than they’d be without him.  Unfortunately he’ll be around too next year.  If D Baseball ever gets it in his head to protect Kemp with Juan Rivera batting behind him in left over Jr Gwynn, who in LF has 2 HR in 14 months, the Dodgers could actually make noise and be better next year, enough to contend, despite Mattingly, Colletti and McCourt.    

Leave a Reply