Email a copy of 'Offseason In Review: Los Angeles Dodgers' to a friend
Loading ...
By Jeff Todd | at
Email a copy of 'Offseason In Review: Los Angeles Dodgers' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
Rbase
I think the dodgers front office did very well this off season and thus gave them a B (B++). The only reason it is not an A is because I think they needed one more established late-inning bullpen arm (they finished 19th in bullpen ERA last year and no, I am not a huge fan of Blanton) and signing Kendrick AND Utley was unnecessary and a waste of money. .
Even though I seem to be in a minority, not re-signing Greinke to a megacontract was the right move in my opinion. That would have handcuffed them for a long time and would keep all of their prospects down in the minors. The re-worked Maeda deal is very low-risk as the dodgers can easily eat the money if he is not performing. Even though they are missing a ton of good starting pitchers, the rotation is still solid, proving that the depth is there. Finally, they robbed the Reds in the weird Todd Frazier deal.
tn29
Agree with the Greinke analysis. Was amazing to see the Dodgers paid less for 11 free agents over 36 years than what Arizona paid for 6 years of Greinke. I think that contract ends up hamstringing them the last 2 or 3 years.
I don’t have too big a problemw ith signing both They are only paying 17 million combined for the two, which doesnt seem too extreme and it never hurt to have veterans in the clubhouse. Especially given the potential injury risk of Turner and possibly gonzalez, that flexibility could be needed
Jean Matrac
I agree too that not signing Greinke was a good move. But I think the contract for the D’backs may turn sour sooner rather than later.
Rbase
Glad someone else did the maths there : ). The amount of money that the Dodgers spend on the international market is quite exorbitant, and it hasn’t worked out that great so far on the MLB side (Puig is a good investment, but Arruebarruena, Guerrero and Oliveira did not pan out).
Even though the money doesn’t hurt, I would have liked to see a guy who is accustomed to bouncing around the infield instead of Utley./Kendrick, who have never played third base (before last year).. Maybe Zobrist (though not at the contract he eventually received). or Aviles,
bigkempin
Oliveira could end up being huge for LA. Oliveira got LA Wood and Peraza. Peraza was then the main piece that got LA Montas, Thompson, and Johnson. So Oliveira=Wood, Montas, Thompson, and Johnson.
BlueSkyLA
The Dodgers are probably pulling down somewhere on the order of $400M in annual revenue, so this is one team that would not have been handcuffed by Grienke’s contract. Their walking away from it is better understood as money they simply decided not to spend.
Anyway, I gave them a C grade, because we didn’t have the option of an incomplete. Nobody knows whether this depth experiment will work, and even more importantly, we have to wonder if this FO will make the trades they need to make when they need to make them. Their objectives for the team are murky, at best, and they seem to prefer to keep it that way.
stl_cards16 2
We do know that the “depth expierement” works. This is exactly what the Cardinals have done the last 5 years.
It hasn’t been all blind luck the Cardinals have suffered through injuries the last couple of years and still been successful.
Having great depth raises the floor of your team. While that may not be the most exciting thing as a fan, it is tremendously successful. You essentially change the “replacement level” of your team.
dieharddodgerfan
Exactly. Quality depth has always been valued, but its even more valued in the post-PED era of MLB. Guys are going to get injured more often, recover slower and decline faster than they did during the steroids and HGH era.
So teams need to have as talented and deep of a 40 man roster as possible to sustain success over a 162 game season and into the playoffs.
BlueSkyLA
Not saying that depth is unimportant, but it’s recognized pretty generally (even if not by many here) that the Dodgers have taken this proposition to the next level. The “more instead of better” route they are taking is an unproven route to a championship.
danpartridge
I don’t know where that’s recognized. Can you cite that? As far as “more,” a 25-man roster and 40-man non-waiver team is pretty set in stone, so the options are finite for every team.
Now compare this team to the D-Backs, who lost Pollock and have been confirmed as doomed by a few people, including (pretty convincingly) Jeff Sullivan at Fangraphs–and the D-Backs were the ones who signed Greinke, following your all-in strategy. They’ve had their depth challenged exactly once, and the bell is already tolling for them. The Dodgers have lost several players til midseason, and predictions still have them very much in contention.
BlueSkyLA
A lot of people in baseball are scratching their heads over the Dodgers approach. This was in a story I read just a few days ago. I will try to find it again and post the link.
Sure the roster is the real constraint, especially for a team with massive resources such as the Dodgers. When I say more instead of better, I refer to Kazmir, Maeda, Beachy, etc. instead of Grienke. It was being prepared to platoon Utley and Hernandez at 2B instead of re-signing Kendrick — which they did only when he got cheaper.
The point being, the Dodgers are one team that can afford to sign the best and depth besides and they are clearly going more for the latter.
danpartridge
Please don’t let it be Platschke or Nightengale you’re reading. In any case, taking depth to a different level means *more depth,* and unless it’s a grave or a pothole, it’s always positive. Always. The D-Backs’ example is effective in understanding this.
And you seem to be overlooking the very point of depth (cf D-Backs and, while we’re at it, throw in the Cards’ recent teams): when a guy goes down, you’ve got something *better* than replacement level. The D-Backs absolutely hamstrung themselves with their recent contracts–and they *followed your view of building teams.*
BlueSkyLA
Excuse me, was this supposed to be a response to anything I said?
BlueSkyLA
latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-dodgers-angels-hernan…
“Even the front office’s staunchest defenders really have no idea how Friedman and his lieutenants are making their decisions.”
danpartridge
“Not saying that depth is unimportant, but it’s recognized pretty generally (even if not by many here) that the Dodgers have taken this proposition to the next level.”
“. . . taking depth to a different level means *more depth,* and unless it’s a grave or a pothole, it’s always positive.”
??
danpartridge
By this, Dylan Hernandez is saying that outside people don’t know the analytical model the Dodgers use to evaluate talent.
Good.
BlueSkyLA
Did you read the entire article? I am guessing not.
danpartridge
Well, it wasn’t a very long article. Hardly a slog, and pretty short on analysis. One thing you failed to mention was the quote preceding the one you pulled: “But whatever metrics the Dodgers are examining remain safely guarded.”
Yeah, people don’t know the metrics the FO uses. Yawn, Dylan O Hernandez. This guy hasn’t been writing much worth thinking about for a while, now.
BlueSkyLA
Naturally.
pustule bosey
I agree with the no greinke deal but I dropped a C on them mainly because pretty much all of their signings have been high risk/reward guys and if they were going to do that a 1-2 year deal on iwakuma should have gone through – also I think that there were a number of other options that they should have jumped on in the pitching realm because they have a really high probability of imploding and if they do – next year is a pitching wasteland so they will have to have a rookie rotation rather than bringing guys along at their own pace. Also I think they should have traded puig and ethier for squad friendlier guys
tn29
Definitely would have liked to see them add more bullpen depth, but overall I like what they did this offseason. I wonder if/when they eventually move Sierra and Montas to the bullpen, to either provide more power arms or potentially start grooming one of them to take over as a closer if Jansen leaves next offseason.
Jean Matrac
I’m a Giant’s fan, but I gave them a B. That was mostly for what they didn’t do, not only not re-signing Greinke, but also not throwing money at other high-priced FAs. It’s not that they didn’t spend money, but they seem to have done it more wisely than in the past. With the huge payroll incurred by Coletti, what they did this year seems to be right given the circumstances. AZ should have followed the same strategy and gotten more players, and depth for the money they spent.
fred-3
The best and most important move was getting rid of Mattingly and hiring Roberts
danpartridge
Interesting. I like the choice in Roberts (I guess we’ll have to see how he actually manages for a while to confirm this), but I liked Mattingly, too. I wasn’t a huge fan of his strategies, but it seemed like he was very effective with players. Still, I agree, and think/hope Roberts will be a step forward.
fred-3
Mattingly completely killed Puig and Pederson’s confidence. It was time for him to go before he was going to ruin Seager’s.
danpartridge
Hadn’t heard that, though I knew he and Puig didn’t get along well at all. Wondering if Turner Ward is gonna make a difference in comparison to Mark McGwire. I guess we’ll be able to tell more after the season progresses.
bigkempin
In 2014 AZ had an injury riddled team so i’ll throw that one out the door. 2015 AZ had one of best offenses in MLB. They didn’t excell at any 1 category but they hit for average, drew walks, hit for power, and were aggressive on the basepaths <—that's on the manager. McGwire put an emphasis on HR's….nothing else. They were 1st in the NL in HR's despite playing half their games at Dodger Stadium. It was the true McGwire approach…..wait for your pitch and crush it, or not, or draw a walk. 1st in the NL in HR, tied for 1st OBP, 10th in BA. They need a hitting coach with a more balanced approach and I think that's what Ward provides.
neoncactus
Agreed. Last year was frustrating how they couldn’t seem to put together rallies. They either homered and scored big or could barely score when they didn’t homer. I was very happy with opening day this year when they scored 15 runs without one home run. I hope it’s more than a one-game thing.
MannyBeingMVP
What I disliked:
(1) signing Chase Utley, prefer Hernandez or Alex Guerrero,
(2) overpay on Sierra.
What I liked:
(1) not throwing $200 million on Greinke (I see two years as a top 10 pitcher, followed by four years as a # 2 to # 3 starter),
(2) signing Maeda,
(3) Not signing the Shark,
(4) cheap signing of Kendrick,
(5) saving money to resign Justin Turner in 2017,
(6) Not trading Urias or DeLeon or Holmes,
(7) Saving money for a mid-season acquisition(s) for bullpen,
(8) Dumping the Chapman deal, great talent but not character.
Grade: B+
danpartridge
I liked their pickup of Blanton, too. Good list. Only thing I might disagree with is Sierra. He might prove to be one of those good risks, and could slot into the bullpen sooner rather than later this season. If he can provide, what, 2 or 3 WAR over the next couple of years, the $15 million might be worth it (at least by some analysts’ standards).
rainbirdmuse
I disagree with the herd here on Greinke. If it was worth it to pay him for five years, then the extra year is meaningless. He will start to regress but if he holds up like Maddux – a close comp – did he will outlast a six year contract. And he wouldn’t have “blocked” the prospects. There would have been three other starting slots up for grabs. That said, the Dodgers will come out all right in the end, assuming they can get Urias, De Leon etc contributing within the next two years. Anymore than that Kershaw will start to regress and they will miss their window of opportunity. Offensively, they must be very confident that Puig and Pedersen will rake this year. If not, the Ds are in trouble this year and really in trouble next year as both Turner and Gonzalez are aging. Should be interesting.
BlueSkyLA
These days the herd discounts anything that doesn’t come from some number-cruncher, but all other things being equal, I will go with what people who know the players best are saying. In this case it was Rick Honeycutt comparing Grienke to Maddux, in terms of his ability to remain effective into his late 30s and possibly beyond. This was of course before the Dodgers decided that they really didn’t need Grienke. Ironic, since unlike Arizona, the Dodgers could have easily afforded to burn the out years of his contract if necessary.
danpartridge
The Dodgers made an offer to Greinke. The D-Backs made a stupid offer to Greinke. Greinke took the stupid one. Greinke took the money. And the Dodgers, with a $236 million opening day payroll, are gonna be just fine.
BlueSkyLA
A puzzling argument.
davidcoonce74
“Excellent but aging.” I keep reading baseball analysis that refers to “aging” players.
We are all aging. I just aged while writing this post. You just aged while reading this post. We begin aging the moment we are born.
marlins1993
It’s inexplicable they didn’t lock down Grienke — someone messed up, or he couldn’t deal with the broken culture there.
It’s a telling flaw of your system. When there’s no new Grienke in your farm, and you expect to win, and all you add with all your money is a sum less than its parts, well then.
Cam
No one messed up – Arizona came over the top with a stack more money and Greinke took it. Fair enough, that’s business.
I’m confused as to what you mean by “when there’s no new Greinke in your farm”. No farm has a Greinke in it, because Greinke is an established quality MLB starter – the farm is for prospects.
But if you want to talk prospects, the Dodgers have some of the best, in quality and depth, going around. If anyone has a farm capable of bringing up a quality arm or three, it’s the Dodgers.
danpartridge
Yeah, the D-Backs committed over 1/3 of their entire 2016 payroll obligation to one guy. If I were the Dodgers, it would almost be an incentive to let a division rival torpedo itself that way. The roughly $60 million difference in rumored contract sizes between the two teams’ offers would be pretty helpful in softening the blow, too.