Colletti On Gonzalez, Crawford, Mattingly

Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti confirmed that he and manager Don Mattingly will return in 2013, Barry M. Bloom of reports. The GM also reflected on the eventful 2012 season in an extended interview with Bloom. Here are some highlights…

  • Colletti explained that the team’s midseason trades should help the team in 2013 and beyond, regardless of whether the Dodgers make the playoffs this year. “When we made these trades, we thought that these players were going to be with us for a while,” Colletti said.
  • The GM said he'll be pleased if Gonzalez can continue producing at this clip for the remainder of his Dodgers career. Gonzalez has a .276/.328/.431 batting line with 21 RBI in 134 plate appearances.
  • There’s a chance Carl Crawford will open the 2013 season with the Dodgers, Colletti said. The left fielder’s throwing arm should be at full strength by May, but he could open the season with the club if he’s progressing well.
  • Colletti said it’s been a great experience working with the Dodgers’ new ownership group, including veteran MLB executive Stan Kasten. “He's someone who understands baseball very well,” Colletti said. “He's been in the game for three decades.” 
  • Manager Don Mattingly succeeds for a variety of reasons, Colletti said. “He continues to learn every day. He's open-minded. He's ultra-competitive. And a very hard worker.”

17 Responses to Colletti On Gonzalez, Crawford, Mattingly Leave a Reply

  1. chicothekid 3 years ago

    Yes, I’ll bet Dodger fans will REALLY be pleased with this deal come 2017 or so, when Crawford has no speed, no game and is making more than the GDP of a small country. And no rings.

    This deal was all about this year and getting the Dodgers into the playoffs and changing the LA mindset to make the Dodgers the baseball Lakers. And the problem with that is, the Lakers go the playoffs every year, and they win championships, a lot.

    So you enjoy Beckett and Crawford for the next mini-eternity, you’re paying for them, and watching your prospects rake in Red Sox uniforms, but that is the going rate for Adrian Gonzalez I guess.

    • dieharddodgerfan 3 years ago

      LOL, Beckett has 2 years left on his contract. He has a 3.17 ERA and 33 K’s in 37 IP since he came to the Dodgers. He will be fine as a middle of the rotation SP.

      Crawford is definitely a risk. It will be interesting to see how he bounces back next year. If he can be 80% to 90% of what he was in Tampa, then that will be fine.

      I think Crawford still has his legs. It was his wrist that was his issue last year. He was on pace last year to steal 25 bags. I still think he can steal 40 to 50 bases, if healthy.

      Bottom line is that when you look at the free agent market, a 31 year old, 4-time All-Star who has been pretty healthy outside of the last 2 years would probably command somewhere b/w $15 to $18 million a year in the free agent market. Look at the numbers people are estimating on Michael Bourn and he does not have a the track record Crawford does.

      The remaining 5 years and $100 mill left on Crawford’s contract is an overpay, but not and egregious one. Maybe a year too long and a few million too much a year. He’ll only be 36 by the end of his deal.

      • bigpat 3 years ago

        Crawford hasn’t produced anything in two seasons since his contract, he basically fell apart physically and his below average plate approach caught up with him his first year in Boston, I don’t see how anyone can say he is not a tremendous overpay. Not on the Vernon Wells level, but he’s a huge albatross.

        Beckett should be ok in the NL, he can maybe be their second best pitcher if he feels like it, and Gonzo can be a very good 1B, but even he is on a decline. It’s very hard to rationalize this deal.

        • towney007 3 years ago

          There was that Gordon Edes piece where he interviewed another executive who really said everything there is to be said: “If you had $250 million to spend on anyone in baseball. Is this how you would spend it?”

          • Jeffrey 3 years ago

            For my money, that’s the quintessential quote about this trade. There’s not a rational person who would spend $250M this way. Giving up prospects to secure these players makes it look even worse.

            The only way to defend this trade for the Dodgers is that there’s nothing else out there, which the Red Sox are about to find out.

          • towney007 3 years ago

            The first part of that I entirely agree with. I think if the point is to send a message that you’re willing to compete, than grabbing Victorino, Hanley Ramirez and Blanton – plus extending Etheir to an $80 million+ deal would get the point across that they’re ‘serious’ about winning…

            But I think the Red Sox are going to be better off here by a lot. There are always players available in the offseason. I distinctly remember them heading off to the Winter Meetings in 05 looking to grab someone and Josh Beckett magically becoming available. Michael Pineda last year, too.. You just never know. Things change fast. Plus there are lots of scenarios out there that could play out where the Red Sox seriously re-stock in a smarter way… Maybe it’s taking Willingham and Morneau’s money on in exchange for less prospect burden. Maybe it’s trading for Shin Soo Choo or Justin Upton…you just never know.

          • bigpat 3 years ago

            exactly, and who was forcing them to spend all this money at once? they could have made deals as they seen fit but to me this move just looked like a power play to make the playoffs, just grabbing some expensive big name players then spending years trying to rationalize it after they dont’ play as well as their price tags.

        • Just_Da_damaja 3 years ago

          what about the jayson werth level ?

    • Kevin Swords 3 years ago

      While I agree that the deals were made with this year in mind, they certainly were made with the next several years in mind as well. A major contributing factor in the decision for them to take on the amount of money that they did was based on the relatively weak free agent crop this season. They were able to get players, whom they determined would be able to contribute to their team at the major league level for several years to come. Meanwhile, (having a relatively weak farm system) they are trying to buy time and fill out a competitive MLB roster while committing and refocusing on player development and the draft. They made this deal (also having obvious money to spend) largely with that in mind. They want these additions to fill roles until they are able to sign and develop young, rising players.

    • Robb Logan 3 years ago

      Kevin nailed it in his assessment. Stan Kasten is known for growing his farm systems where ever he has been. In this case the Dodgers have a woefully thin system other than a few players. The team needs to field a competitive team but this was done long term as well so the Dodgers could work into the Kasten system of having a highly successful farm system. The main difference here is location. Dodger fans do not like to think they rebuild, they want to win always much like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. So the trades made absolute sense in that the team can field a good squad while rebuilding the farm.

      Also of note is that the team down the I5 made news this past off season. These trades were as much to get attention back on the Dodgers and away from the Angels as it is a very competitive market for fans. L.A. (where I live) is known for the bandwagon folks here and the hot team or the team in the headlines will draw.

  2. BK 3 years ago

    These public statements sure make the dodgers FO sound like a bunch of losers.

  3. BlueSkyLA
    BlueSkyLA 3 years ago

    TJ Simers has a column actually worth reading in this morning’s LA Times, mainly because most of the words belong to Don Mattingly.

  4. start_wearing_purple
    start_wearing_purple 3 years ago

    “The GM said he’ll be pleased if Gonzalez can continue producing at this clip for the remainder of his Dodgers career. Gonzalez has a .276/.328/.431″

    Seriously? Personally I’d be disapointed.

    • Amish_willy 3 years ago

      That’s Loney production, except they’ll pay Adrian the same amount in 5 months that Loney cost over his 5+ years stay in LA. I just wonder if the 260m would have been better spent on Hamilton & Greinke. Keep your more advanced arms, lose two picks. Get players that actually appear to still be in their primes. Isn’t 1b the easiest production to get solid production at a minimal commitment??

      FWIW, Loney hit .284/.341/.423 in LA. Granted Adrian should exceed that, and probably handsomely, but to be satisfied with how he’s hit so far, and wish to see it replicated… that’s some bad juju Coletti is playing with there. You don’t have to squint much at all to see Adrian’s career playing out like that of Todd Helton’s. Crazy how quickly the hr’s can sometimes disintegrate.

    • Robb Logan 3 years ago

      The quote is for the 20 RBI’s for the month not the average. As a GM, manager or fan anyone would gladly take 20 rbi’s each month from a player

  5. Douglas Bath 3 years ago

    In a related story the Dodgers will be pleased if Dee Gordon has a .563 OPS again next season.

Leave a Reply