Dodger Thoughts

Jon Weisman's outlet for dealing psychologically with the Los Angeles Dodgers, baseball and life

Uribe is home free

Jerry Sands’ latest stay in Los Angeles has turned out to be ever-so-brief, as the Dodgers have sent him back to Albuquerque — where he will meet up with Tony Gwynn Jr., who cleared waivers and accepted a minor-league assignment — to make room on the Dodger roster for Adam Kennedy coming off the disabled list.

The moves mean that with 23 days to go until MLB active rosters can expand to 40, Juan Uribe is probably going to defy Damocles’ dagger and remain a Dodger though the end of next season and, presumably, on into 2013. This is the case even though Uribe has only three plate appearances in the past 17 days.

One position-player move that remains for the Dodgers to make is the potential activation of Dee Gordon from the disabled list if he’s ready before September 1, but at this point, I expect the Dodgers would send Gordon or Luis Cruz to the minors for a brief time and then recall the player when rosters widen (or just keep Gordon on the DL until then).  As far as I can tell, the breaking point with Uribe for 2012 has come and gone.

Cruz, by the way, is in a 3-for-22 slump with one walk, lowering his 2012 on-base percentage to .286 (nearly identical to Gordon’s .280) and his slugging percentage to .385. According to Baseball Prospectus’ True Average statistic, which factors in baserunning, Cruz is at .245 compared to Gordon’s .224. Cruz, four years older, might be a better player than Gordon right now, but I still am interested in seeing how Gordon can develop, even if the next opportunity doesn’t come until next year.

* * *

  • Bobby Abreu has also cleared waivers, according to Jerry Crasnick of He can accept a minor-league assignment like Gwynn, or become a free agent.
  • Eric Stephen of True Blue L.A. got a great shoutout from T.J. Simers of the Times.

    … MATTINGLY LIKES to joke that’s Eric Stephen knows more about the Dodgers than anyone else in the media.

    “Go ahead, Eric,” I tell him after Mattingly speaks highly of Stephen again, “ask him about some minor leaguer.”

    “All right, I’ll ask about Juan Rivera,” says Stephen …

  • In his review of the Dodgers’ second 54 games of the 2012 season, Stephen highlights how severe the team’s offensive dropoff was, player by player.
  • James Loney should really, seriously, consider converting to pitching, argues Evan Bladh of Opinion of Kingman’s Performance.
  • Bluetopia, the 2009 movie about the Dodgers and their fans in which I had a brief appearance, will be screened August 16 at the Craft and Folk Art Museum, which has an ongoing baseball exhibition this summer. A Q&A with director Tim Marx follows.
  • One of my favorite baseball articles of the season comes from Russell A. Carleton of Baseball Prospectus, for which he dramatizes how much more difficult the job of baseball manager is than we typically comprehend.


Smiles, everyone, smiles


Summer stories


  1. I love that we still have Tony in the organization. I love his play and hustle.

  2. I wish someone on TV would ask Ned or Donnie why Uribe is still on the team. I’d love to watch them come up with an answer.

  3. Anonymous

     Can’t we just let Uribe go back to The Phone Booth, where he rightfully belongs?

  4. Anonymous

    What the heck was the Jerry Sands callup all about?  Why do you bring up a guy from AAA to play one game in four days, then send him back just so you can keep Juan Uribe’s posterior on the bench?  You can read the entire rant at 

  5.  “Whatever happens, there’s nothing I can do about it,” Uribe said. “I
    can’t control that. If they want to trade me or do something else,
    that’s something I can’t control. The decision is for them to make. I’m
    here to do whatever they want me to do.”

    What we wanted you to do was hit the ball and maybe see more than 3 pitches per at bat. And there is something you can do about it. Get in shape, put in extra work and earn your way back into the lineup.

    • Anonymous

      From everything I’ve read and heard about Uribe, he is universially regarded as one of the hardest workers on the team as far as preparation and the like. Obviously it’s not translating into him being a productive member of the team on the field and I am in no way saying he deserves a spot on the roster over Abreu or even Gwynn, but apparently “extra work” isn’t the issue.

      • He is not in shape. He should work harder at getting in shape then. Maybe the little injuries would go away.

        • Anonymous

          Maybe that’s just his “shape”?
          Did Tony Gwynn Sr. look “in-shape” while he was hitting well over .300 in his later playing days?
          Does Prince Fielder look “in-shape” to you?

          •  The difference is, they produce(d)..This guy can’t even hit .200.  I know you are not defending him..but if it ain’t workin (2 years now) then try something different…

          • Anonymous

            It was Einstein (right?) who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. 

            Curiously, that’s the same as the definition of “long-term contract for PVL.”

          • Anonymous

            Baseball according to Crash Davis: 
            “If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus grow back on your shower shoes and the press’ll think you’re colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob.” 

          • Anonymous

            My favorite line in that movie.

          • Anonymous

            But that was after a decade of work that a slimmer Gwynn put in. If I recall correctly Vinny marveled at the fact that Gwynn was taking extra batting practice at Jack Murphy Stadium prior to the 1984 WS.

            Did Uribe do the same before the Texas series? Maybe but I haven’t heard Vinny mention it yet.

      • Anonymous

        Given a chance to play even one day in a Dodger uniform, I’d out work everyone 2:1.  Doesn’t mean much if my skills aren’t there anymore though.  Sorry Juan.

      • Anonymous

        Uribe is regarded as a good defender and looks like a great example to have on the team.  Keeps a smile on his face and seems happy to be on the team given his stats.

  6. Picture with the Giants:
    Picture with the Dodgers:

    Looks the same.

    I second the comment of AaSsWw.

    • Anonymous

      Looks like the Giants pic was after a line drive, while the Dodgers pic was after a pop-up.  Just guessing from the angle of gaze.

      • Adam Luther

        Exactly what I noticed.  “Just” go hit line drives.  We’ve got nearly enough pop on the team now without Uribe having to swing from the end of his uniform pant legs.

    •  I can show pics that don’t look the same minus the baggy jersey.  I don’t know how to make small links to do so and no biggie, I’m not trying to be right. Just my opinion.

    • Anonymous

      Uribe’s shape has nothing to do with it. He has always been round.
      Nor is it a question of effort. He swings harder than anybody in baseball.  
      The problem is he just isn’t a very good baseball player any more.  Could he regain the stroke that made him a .824 OPS guy in 2010?  Doubtful on the wrong side of 30.  His upside at this stage of his career is a solid defender with a .240 average.  If that’s standing in the way of better options, he must go, regardless of the sunk cost.  

      I predict he gets to come to spring training next year, but probably doesn’t join the team for opening day.  

      • Anonymous

        Better options are hard to find. Cream of the 3B FA crop is made up of guys like Placido Polanco and Ty Wigginton.

        • Anonymous

          Herrera would be a better option in my opinion.

          • Anonymous

            Or, Ramirez at third and Gordon at short.  Maybe Morneau at first should he somehow be available.  I would try to trade Ethier for a second baseman and maybe Sands and/or Hamilton to join Kemp and Victorino.

            Loney would then join the starting rotation in July 2013.

          • Anonymous

            To replace Ramirez with Gordon is not the thing to do.  Why would anyone use Gordon in place of an all star?  I think Gordon has lost his job forever.

        • Anonymous

          Pass on both.  Maybe they can fast track Saeger and move him to third.

          • Anonymous

             Seager’s a HS draftee. Unless he’s the second coming of A-Rod, he’s not going to be our 3B solution in the next couple of years.

          • Anonymous

            I agree, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel.  With Seager’s size, he’ll likely be moved to 3B or the outfield.

        • no worries. next year hanley will be at 3rd and Dee will be at SS.

      • Anonymous

        He never was particularly good, though he had a couple fluke years with superficially good statistics.

      • Anonymous

        i can’t sleep, so you guys are going to have to deal with it. Yeah, Uribe’s always been on the fluffy side. 

    • KT

      The giants shot is more of a closer look but in my opinion his face is a little fuller in the Dodger uniform

  7. Anonymous

    Well, judging from the comments, especially since the Sands callup, I think most of us agree that Uribe’s continued presence is a mystery.  I can think of two reasons that Colletti might want him around.  First, he might be trying to trade him, and is waiting for the right window to place him on waivers to get that done (or the wrong window – losing him on waivers would be OK).  Maybe the thinking there is that, yeah, sunk costs are sunk, but if some value can be recouped in a trade, all the better.  Nobody would assume that salary, but maybe he thinks a deal whereby the Dodgers swallow most but not all of the salary is possible.  That’s the pie-in-the-sky optimistic take.  The second possibility is just that Colletti, as always, can’t get enough veteran depth on the 25.  Who knows – infielders could get injured again, and then you’ll all be glad he kept ol Juan Uribe in reserve woncha?  Well, no, he’ll still stink.

    Perhaps most interesting here is the possibility of a rift b/w the FO and Mattingly.  FO keeps Uribe on the team, so Mattingly nails him to the bench.  Mattingly doesn’t seem the spiteful type, and it was Mattingly who chose to use Sands only once during this brief stint, so I’m not convinced this is right, but I think it’s better now to think of the Dodgers as having a short bench – a 24-man roster.

    •  I think the question is, for both Mattingly and Colletti, whether there are 14 better reserves than Uribe.  And that question really revolves around Sands and other Dodger prospects.  For example, I think this latest move is more about a lack of faith in Sands than a secret love of Uribe.

      That being said, I can’t explain why Sands was called up in the first place. Maybe they just wanted to make sure they could get Gwynn through waivers sooner than later.  That’s the only thing I can think of.

      • Anonymous

        I think that should be the question, yes.  And there’s some baseball lore to justify a preference for veterans over rookies on the bench – that other things equal, vets are mroe used to pressure, and that rookies need more regular work.

        But are other things equal?  Or do we think the best hitting prospects (shallow pool as it is) would out-hit the current cast?  I don’t know the answer, and I’m willing to believe that, in the absence of a meaningful statistical record, Don Mattingly is a better judge of hitting ability than I am.

        The question of the best 4 reserves (assuming a 12-man pitching staff and a non-negotiable backup catcher) should also include some current starters.  The bench half of the Loney-Rivera platoon, Victorino vs LHP and Ethier vs LHP, Luis Cruz…  I think that’s why some of us were so interested in the Sands callup – it looked like maybe the bench was being improved by platooning another starter or two.  Mattingly apparently wasn’t convinced that Sands could play 1b.  I’ll grant that Loney is terrific with the glove, but it’s hard to believe Sands wouldn’t be better than Rivera over there.

      • Anonymous

        I could agree with you on the lack of faith, but only if the stay lasted more than 4 days.  My guess (and that’s all it is) is that Ethier twisted something in San Francisco catching that ball against the fence and needed a day or two.  He got one, then talked his way back into the lineup.

      • I think the thing that is continually overlooked with Sands is that in the 23 at bats or so this season at almost no time did he look like he had the ability to hit major league pitching. say small sample size. say loney is terrible. whatever. the guy was mostly hitting 260 in new mexico. how can you possible say he’s better than loney or ever rivera. say they are bad but in the middle of a pennant race you’re not suppose to send someone to the plate that has mostly no chance period. batting 250 in the majors is not having no chance. i think you have to use your eyes a little bit on this one. 

        • Anonymous

          You’re assuming the consequent.  You don’t know that Loney is a better hitter than Sands.  Loney is a known quantity, Sands isn’t.  If you assume that Sands is even worse than Loney (which you do) then it’s easy to conclude that Sands should not replace Loney.  But (1) batting average doesn’t tell us much, and (2) ABQ stats also don’t tell us much.  Indeed, Sands could be awful and still put up good stats in ABQ (the usual reason for this is that HR power becomes warning-track power).  So we really are down to “does Sands look like a good hitter?”  I am not convinced that he is, but I’ve only seen a handful of PAs against MLB pitching this year, so I’m also not convinced that he isn’t.  I’m willing to defer to Mattingly on this, although I also remember that he’s been trying to convince the world that Loney is a good hitter ever since he came here as Torre’s hitting coach.

          • Anonymous

            Sands didn’t put up good stats in AAA (or the MLB), that’s the point. His BB% and power are just not good enough to make up for his low contact, and, away from ABQ, his BB% and power become pedestrian. So what we do know about Sands both in terms of stats and scouting says he’s not likely to be a better hitter than Rivera or Loney.

    • Anonymous

      Do you ever notice that the worst signings that Colletti makes are ex Giants??

  8. Anonymous

    The main point of the BP article that Jon linked is that most of the job of managing takes place off the field.  This must be true because managers have precious little impact on the game itself, especially with the universal (CYA) tendency to manage “by the book.”  Handling 25+ rich testosterone cases who have a lot of time on their hands is the tough part.  That these guys have high-pressure jobs at a young age, when life is also probably full of pressures (new marriages, young kids, have a year away from home) must be tough.  If I were a GM, I’d want a guy who is a good manager of people first, and will “do no harm” on the field.  If I could get a Joe Madden, whose tools for player evaluation are less than 100 yrs old, even better.  But really that’s my job (as the GM), and as long as he’s not Jim Tracy, refusing to play the best players, everything will be OK.

    I do think the BP article over-dramatizes things a bit.  Maybe it’s aimed at 20-yr olds who’ve never been in a management role.  He’s dead right that the scenarios he imagines are realistic, but they’re not unique to baseball.  Anyone who has to manage people runs into similar dilemmas.  Not everyone has a posse of reporters second-guessing every move, but lots of folks have equally narrow-minded and short-term-oriented “suits from the corporate office” applying similar pressure.  And reporters can’t (directly) fire you.

    But in a sense, the main point of the article is that baseball managers’ jobs are only a little about sports, and mostly about people in a high-stress work environment.  I think that’s right.

    •  I think that’s the point – it’s not that what managers do is unusual, but the way they’re widely evaluated (by fans) in contrast to the reality of the job – that’s unusual.

    • Anonymous

      Years ago, I was an outside sales manager for a small company based in Hermosa Beach. Two of my best salesmen were full-blown alcoholics – one was in his early 50’s and had been a star trader with Bears-Stearns in another lifetime, the other was in his early 30’s. The older one would go on epic benders to the point of having that slouched-in-his-chair vacant stare. I spent many hours at his house  (he is still a friend to this day) trying to help him get his life together, let alone getting him to sober up so he could be productive for the company. The owner of the company put up with these guys’ drinking because when they were sober (for the most part, anyways) they could sell more in one week than most of my other guys could sell in a month. But yeah, whether sales manager or sports team manager, it’s managing people, and all their personality/problems that come with them.

    • if you haven’t been in a high pressure management position where you are directly in charge of 30 to 50 high ego personalities you can’t possibly begin to understand how tough that is. especially if you’ve only been a working bee (nothing wrong with that at all)  or haven’t lived past 30 years of so. 

      • Anonymous

         Totally agree with you.  Baseball manager is one such position.  But it’s not the only one.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve found it challenging enough to manage the egos of a slow pitch team. I once had a guy who thought I was dissing him because I hit him fourth instead of third.

  9. Anonymous

    Beltran touches Bum for two in the first.

    Can’t believe we let the Rox and their AA arms beat us twice.

    • Anonymous

      3-1 final.  Cards get the split while having their huge run differential reduced last night.  Dodgers now one game out.

  10. Another thing unmentioned about baseball managers:  they’re middle-aged guys wearing tight uniforms. Managing 25 egos is difficult enough without that!

  11. foul tip

    Misread the headline at first.  Hoped it meant Uribe was back home in the DR.  ;[(

    Wiki says his full name is Juan Cespedes Uribe Tena.  What if he started going by Cespedes?  Might some of the ability of a certain Cuban/Oakland outfielder rub off through some sort of osmosis vibe?

    No?  Didn’t think so.  But about anything is worth a shot at this point.

    • Anonymous

       Céspedes is his middle name, then. Tena is his mother’s surname.

  12. Anonymous

    No offense to Eric Stephens, but Simers was too unreadable to get to his shout out.

    • Anonymous

      Usually Stephen is the one who’s unreadable…  :)

      • Anonymous

        Conversely, what a great piece from Russ Carleton.

      • Stephen is not a professional. he should be given some slack.

        • Anonymous

          Anyone who has his own blog ought to be able to write a column that isn’t full of grammatical errors, misspellings, or misstatements of fact.  Stephen flunks that test, day after day after day.

          • Totally disagree.  

          • As someone who has been in the profession it’s so liberating to totally disavow any slavitude to grammar, syntax, capitalization, and spelling. I mean i really relish it. i’m certain it annoys others but I feel free in the total disregard for re-editing. stick it to the man I say. Of course I don’t like it when you don’t do it but i digress.

            Don’t much care for Stephen’s group but for what he does I think he deserves applause rather than disdain. I don’t find his accuracy a problem at all. And I also like that he keeps snarkiness to a minimum on a playing field that seems to demand it. I’m sure maintaining Dodger credentials has a large influence on that, but still, if you want to complain about baseball blogs for cause there are many others that are far worse and some that are monumentally irritating. Legends in their own minds when all they’ve done is talked smack on a keyboard.

    • I wonder if most people realize that Simers has made a good living because of his manufactured Shtick and readers’ reaction to it.

      • Anonymous

        With all the fine writers and reporters who’ve been fired from the LA Times over the years, the continued employment of Simers and Plaschke remains all the more puzzling. They must have the negatives to the nude photos of Dorothy Chandler that Mark Sweeney and Garret Anderson got their hands on.

        • well it would be much clearer to you if you understood the economics of newspapers. sports + readership + brand recognition = job security

      • Anonymous

        It does guarantee that the LA Times knows he has at least a few readers.  However, Jim Murray received just as many comments, for his time, and very few negative.  Just because folks comment on your work, doesn’t mean they are helping to sell ads.

        • readers comments don’t sell ads. advertising reach does. and perceived advertising reach.

          • Anonymous

            My point is that when you turn readers away, they also turn away from the ads, both in print and on the web. 
            While I’ve seen many folks provide negative comments regarding Simers, I’ve seen very, very few positive ones.  Controversial writers have their place and can provide measurable value for their employers (see Robert Hilburn), but those that focus solely on the negative aspects of the industry wear out their welcome quickly and readers turn elsewhere. 

          • well i would suggest your hypothesis regarding negativity and newspaper is incorrect. just my opinion.

  13. Anonymous

    G’s lose, Ari takes early 2-0 lead.

  14. Anonymous

    The good news is that Gumbarner lost to the Cards. The bad news is that, somehow, Bochy figured out that Scutaro is a better player than Theriot, who’s been valuable to the Dodgers this season.

  15. foul tip

    The main thing Uribe has been good for is some smiles through, which I think Jon linked to last year.  There a few fairly recent ones that are good.

    • Anonymous

      Also, without Uribe, there would be about 50 percent fewer topics and comments on Dodger Thoughts this year.  :)

      • Anonymous

         Au contraire.  We’d have more time and inclination to discuss other things.

    • Anonymous

      Funny one time, but would be more so if he were a Gnat again.

    •  lol

      Ethier’s contract has a no talking to Uribe clause

      • Can’t wait for the hellstorm when people are talking about ethier’s contract in about 5 years. 

        • Anonymous

          Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8 Rule 8

  16. Anonymous

    Right now we have the following starting pitchers signed for 2013, including prospects who may be ready: Kershaw, Billingsley, Capuano, Harang, Lilly, De La Rosa, Fife, Ely, Webster, Lee, Reed.  Yes, eleven starters on the depth chart.  Granted, Fife and Ely may be marginal and the last three have yet to pitch in the show, but what it means to me is that we have way more pitching than we could actually use.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see a couple of them traded in the coming months and winter.  (I rather wish we had traded one or more for Greinke or Cliff Lee, but oh well.)

    • well you can eliminate fife, ely, lee and reed from your list. does that help. also Greinke or Cliff Lee were never coming to the Dodgers. seven starters are more than we can use? how many have the dodgers used this year?

      • by my non BR count i’d say the dodgers have used at least 8? seems like the dodgers have just enough.

        • Anonymous

          8 is correct.  The one that has the most quesitons surrounding next year should be De La Rosa.  An awful lot of excitement last year, but how many innings do they push him towards next season.   Does he pitch out of the pen next year? 

      • Anonymous

        And you can eliminate them why?  Because they’ve never shown anything in the majors and therefore are not good enough for the majors and won’t possibly be in 2013? 
        I would suspect that vodf is a pseudonym for Ned Colletti, except that I believe that vodf really is a Dodger fan, whereas I’m not so sure Colletti isn’t still working for the Giants.

        • Anonymous

           Reed is just getting stretched out in AA, pitching 3 innings at a time. Lee is like 20 years old. Fife and Ely are for the direst of emergencies.

          • Anonymous

            That’s it, plain and simple.

          • Anonymous

            Lee turns 21 Sept. 13.  By Kershaw standards (in the bigs by 20), that makes him an old man.

          • the great prospects are well known by the age 21. or in the majors already. lee is neither.

          • Anonymous

            I wish we could start judging Zach Lee by Kershaw standards.

          • Anonymous

            Lee would not qualify as well known?  I would not 100% exclude him from making his debut next year.

          • NOBODY has called Zach Lee a great prospect. Not even his mother.

          • Anonymous

            C’mon now.  His mom has.  So has $5+ million dollars.

          • Anonymous

            VODF: “the great prospects are well known by the age 21. or in the majors already. lee is neither.”

            At the age of 21, future two-time Cy Young Award winner Tim Lincecum was drafted by the Cleveland Indians in the 42nd round. He was well-known to the 41 teams that passed on him, but they didn’t like his long hair.

          • Anonymous

            Per Baseball America, Reed is rated a top 50 prospect (for all teams) and the #1 Dodger prospect.

          • SteelMohawk

            I would take Zach Lee, even if he is only as good as Eovaldi for the next 2-3 years, than bank on Cliff Lee giving the Dodgers one good year to justify a $105M contract.

          • Anonymous

             Sounds like Reed is on the Jim Tracy Plan.

        • the most over rated thing in baseball are prospects.

          • Anonymous

            Well, maybe 2nd-most.  After “intangibles.”

          • oh you’re trying to trap me now.

          • Anonymous

            i’m sure there’s been other prospects who’ve struck ah into reporters (is that what you call the good folks over at fangraphs?) i remember reading a peace from them that really put De La Rosa in prospective, but again as others have mentioned until you put him on a major league mound for an extended period of time, against major league hitters, we will get a better understanding as to what time of pitcher he will be. 
                      Was Trout projected to be the type of talent he is today? Maybe Logan White see’s something we don’t. 

    • Anonymous

       Greinke’s been pretty bad for the Anaheimers.

  17. Anonymous

    Here’s a chance to put into practice the lesson from that recent post with the glass of water . . .

    Yes, the Dodgers just lost 5 of 9 at home, in a fashion many agree was pathetic.

    Yes, they’re on the road again (with or without accompaniment from Willie N.), another 10-game trip.

    But hey — with all that “sky is falling,” the Dodgers are only 1 GB!  Imagine how far ahead they will be when Shane, Matt, Andre, and Hanley start hitting in the same game — preferably the same inning(s)!

    • Anonymous

      I agree that it will turn around and hey, at least the Gnats lost today ;)

  18. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Times considers Simers and Plaschke to be assets, despite being fully aware of their detractors.  Their influence is considerable, and they have plenty of whole-hearted fans. Advertisers certainly would feel comfortable putting their money behind them.  While I’m not a fan, there’s no mystery at all why the Times pays them as much as they do.  In that respect, VODF is correct.

    I do think the Times could use their platform to develop newer, better (and lower-salaried) columnists.

    • agreed. i found that the big newspapers mostly bought their new columnists. back then at least it was much prestige to bring in someone else’s best. a national search is what the bosses wanted. very infrequently did someone get promoted from within. and internally the idea that a young talented writer would be given a plush thing like a columnist position over a bunch of long-term reporting professionals almost never happened. 

      but in these times i suspect it will happen more because a newspaper columnist holds much lesser weight than what is possible now if you’re really talented. Still i think the Times is still to important in their own eyes to promote from within except for maybe Sam or some other I don’t know.  the most fascinating story to me is Bill Simmons. his style, length, outlook would have sent him off to another field in years past. But in my opinion  he’s the most talented sports columnist on a week to week basis i’ve ever seen. that couldn’t have happened 30 years ago.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe the next LATImes bankruptcy will usher them out the door.  I originally turned to this blog because their sports coverage is so awful. I can’t believe I’m the only one. 

      • You’re not the only one, but it should speak volumes about relative levels of popularity that they’re still getting six figures and I’m back to doing this for free. 

        • Anonymous

          Very, very, very small consolation, but a lot of us read your musings and won’t even consider his.

    • Anonymous

       Thanks for the heads-up — nice story! 

      I was lucky to be part of the audience two years ago when Sandy helped with Joe’s fundraiser.  When I made arrangements to attend, I didn’t know it was going to be televised.  But the trip to LA was worth it — the outpouring of love for #32 was something I’ll always remember.

    • Anonymous

      awesome story SaMo thanks for sharing. Man, the ball looks so small on Koufax hand.

  19. For whatever reason some of you think Zach Lee is a GREAT prospect. I’ll bet if you go to fan graphs or some other stat house and looked up Rubby de la Rosa you would find what a GREAT prospect really looks like. Zack can’t dream of ever having the “ceiling” Rubby has. Great apparently has lost it’s meaning at DT.

    • Anonymous

       Man, too think last week I was agreeing with you on a lot of issues.  Lee has a high ceiling, so does Rubby, but based on his few starts last year, so many folks here are forecasting him higher.  Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but like you said, they are both prospects.

      • i didn’t say he was a bad prospect. Didn’t even say he was an average prospect just not a GREAT one.

        • I think it’s fair to say that Lee is a good but not great prospect at this point. These things fluctuate all the time.

          How are you evaluating him, though?  Are you using stats or the eyeball test?  

          • fair to ask. i’ve seen him pitch a couple times via the Internet. Very small sample size. I’ve watched his box scores. I’ve read some scouting reports. I have a belief that the great ones are great or have great tools early knowing there are exceptions.

            But just as much no baseball folks are saying  he’s great. His stats don’t support great. He doesn’t dominate anyone. And then if you compare him to Rubby he’s definitely not as good across the board. All that leads me to believe he’s not great. In this world of over-hyped if you’re not over-hyped, well, so far, you’re not great or people don’t believe you’re going to be great. I just haven’t seen or read anything that supports great other than hopes of Dodger fans.With Rubby you see great almost everywhere you look.

            I even get a little miffed when people say Zack has a definitely higher ceiling than EO. To me that seems to be a case of people saying that strictly from stat ratios. 

  20. Anonymous

    For anybody who might have been worried: the Red Sox have reacquired Scott Podsednik.

  21. Anonymous

    Of the Emergency Broadcast System?


  22. Anonymous

    veryolddodgerfan: try a newsroom sometime. makes major league managing look like a cake walk in my opinion.

    VODF:  I never managed a MLB team — I did enjoy co-coaching a high school JV baseball team for a few years and found it challenging and enjoying — but I was a newsroom manager for many years.  As the managing editor of a newspaper in the Midwest, I had a newsroom of 150 people, some with big egos.   There was a wide range of talent, but nearly all were hard-working.   It could be difficult at times, particularly when I had to step in between a pair of managers who I felt were about to come to blows, but I found nearly every day enjoyable. We had one particular reporter who was marvelously talented and driven.   He was also somewhat of a prima donna.   I remember when another reporter subtly complained about how the aforementioned reporter was treated so well, I responded, “Well, XXXX is a prima donna, but he sure can dance.”  The guy went on to win a pair of Pulitzer Prizes, one at that paper and one at another.

    • Anonymous

      So who was harder to control, the reporters or parents that over value their son’s talent?

      • Anonymous

        Most reporters were very respectful and appreciative.  A few were hard to control.   Most of those were the ones with very high standards.  I remember that one of our best reporters came in my office one morning and was distraught about how his story had appeared in that day’s paper.  He explained that he had (correctly) used the word “tony” to characterize an exclusive community.  Someone on the copy desk thought it was a typo and had changed it to “tiny,” unaware of the meaning of “tony.”   I did my best to assuage his feelings.  I succeeded only a bit.   As far as coaching JV baseball players, I honestly cannot recall a single significant issue from a parent in my three years.  That is one of the benefits of coaching JV baseball.   For one thing, fewer parents attend the games than varsity contests.  For another, there is nowhere near as much politics as with varsity baseball.  At the higher level, parents realize this may be the last stop for their boys and are (not) looking forward to not seeing them play organized baseball again.  Also, some are hoping that scholarships are in the offing.  I attended many varsity games; the griping and second-guessing were far more prevalent than at the JV level.

        • scooplew I’m starting to believe you lived and worked just outside of Pleasantville.

          • Anonymous

            I worked at several papers.  I was lucky.  Mostly, top management was solid.  I learned a lot and grew in the job — listening to the veterans and then, as I got older, sharing what I had learned with the younger reporters.  The best advice I ever got was from the former city editor of a large metro where I first became a manager.  It was: “You have to know when to kick them and know when to kiss them.”  I enjoyed virtually ever day in a 27-year newspaper career, starting as a sportswriter in the early 1970s.  In each of my first three years I covered the A’s in the World Series. That was a great way to start — even when Billy Martin, as the manager of the Tigers, went on the most amazing, profane rant I ever heard.  Looking back, being a sportswriter was perhaps the most fun.  

          • not Pleasantville then, Pleasanton, CA.

          • Anonymous

            VODF:  Actually, it was Monterey.

          • Monterey. Good duty.

    • You are a better person than me. 

      • Anonymous

        Well, I don’t know about that, but thanks for the comment.

        • i found it to be frustrating. people as a group could only seem to put away the politics and meaness of group dynamics when there was extreme news. but i find that to be true with human beings in most cases.

          • Anonymous

            Things were always better during extreme news.  And newspaper people do complain a lot, particularly after they have had a couple of drinks at the corner watering hole.

  23. Jibin Park

    Anyone interested in taking batting practice/throw a bullpen at Dodger Stadium Thursday or Friday?  I actually might take them up on this offer.  Actually not that unreasonable a price.

    • Anonymous

      I think I’ll hop on a plane tonight!

    • Anonymous

      Lousy timing for me, but it seems well worth the price.  Any idea if they have done this before and/or may do it again in the future?

  24. “Baseball America has released their Best Tools rankings for 2012 and it includes four Dodgers prospects and one Dodgers manager.”

    • Anonymous

      Not many comments on the offensive side of the ball.

      • Anonymous

        Saying that someone is the best defensive player at his position is like a beauty pageant contestant who wins best personality.  It’s nice to know but it’s not what it’s important.

    • Anonymous

      The same article also lists the Dodgers’ international signings.  I find it odd that Puerto Rico is in there…

  25. Good Dodgers state of the union piece from Mike Petriello

  26. Anonymous

    Looks like Abreu cleared waivers & excepted a minor league assignment, you think Mattingly will call him & Gwynn back when rosters expand? i really hope Gwynn gets the call.

    •  I think both would come back, assuming room can be made on the 40-man roster.

      • Anonymous

        That might be the tricky part.
        I hadn’t realized that Puig was on the 40 man.  Might he get a preview look, even if it involved no playing time, pinch running or blowouts?

        • Seriously doubt it.  Not much point to it – especially if they have Gwynn and Gordon to pinch-run.  Puig hasn’t even played A ball yet.

          • Anonymous

            I agree.  He’s got to be considered too raw.  But the way he’s going, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get a look during the roster expansion next year.  Granted, nine games is small data, but nine games of great stuff is better than nine games of so-so stuff.

          • Anonymous

            You know, I absolutely agree but that leaves me in the dark as to why he would be on the 40 man already.    Is it an ego part of this contract or is there a legit baseball reason?

          •  It helps guarantee that he won’t be stuck in the Dodger farm system for as long as the typical minor leaguer.

  27. Anonymous

    Nats on pace for 100 wins.  Also saw in WaPo that Howard to LA and Bynum to 76ers.

  28. from DKnobler: The Astros have made history! First NL team in post-1900 era ever to lose 34 of 38.

    Jeez. Don’t we play them soon? Naturally I’ll worry about that series. They’re due!

    • Anonymous

      The Dodgers don’t play the Astros again unless they meet in the playoffs.

      The Dodgers caught a bad break in scheduling because they ended up with one extra series against an NL Central team and it was the Cardinals. The Giants extra series is against the Astros.

      That extra series rotates around. The Dodgers had extra series against the Pirates for a couple seasons. Fortunately, they don’t have one this season.

      In the NL, the Dodgers are done with:
      New York

      • Anonymous

        Interesting. Another one of those unbalanced schedule things (and something I didn’t even realize – thanks for noting it).

        Worse for the Cards is that 7 of the 11 games are at DS.  At 4-3 so far, maybe the Dodgers will go 8-3 against them.  And 1-3 in games I attended.

        I find it odd that, if there has to be an extra series against someone, two of the three series are four games rather than three.

        I wonder what kind of oddities the schedules will have next year, when it will be all different due to the 15-team league.

    • Anonymous

      The Astros beat the Dodgers 12-0 earlier this year. 

      I believe the internet blamed Chad Billingsley.

  29. Does DT have the most journalists/recovering journalists (and you editors, too) per capita? 

    I’m one. How about you?

  30. Anonymous

    I covered sports for my high school newspaper.  Does that count?

  31. In 10 years, we have had commenters from every walk of life … except the medical profession.  Not one commenter that I know of has ever indicated as much.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén